25 Aug 2025 | Asia and Pacific, China, News and features, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
It was late one night in September, but the Beijing subway was still noisy and crowded. Most of the passengers were young commuters returning home from work. Ken was sitting in a corner of the carriage and didn’t know exactly how it happened.
“It seemed like someone standing in the middle of the carriage began to sing and some others joined him,” Ken said. “By the time I noticed it, half of the passengers were singing together.”
The song was called “I Finally Believed in Fate”. A video later circulated online with subtitles, although these differed from what they sang, Ken recalled. Ken and I are chatting over Signal, myself in Australia and Ken still in Beijing. “Such songs are called depressing songs. It is all about frustration and pain,” he said. “But there’s no one to blame and nothing that can be done.”
I’m tired of the unfairness of the world
I’m tired of false love
I’ve broken the vinegar bottle of life
There’s so much pain in my heart
I’m all alone in a foreign land
Who can I tell my heart to?
I dried my tears and my heart broke
I finally believed in fate
In recent years, such things happen frequently, perhaps out of a momentary burst of emotion, or possibly a planned action. Many songs are sung, including “I Finally Believed in Fate”, or “People Without Dreams Won’t Be Sad” or “When I’m Done With All This Suffering”. These songs are popular among young people, but cannot reach the top of the charts because they mostly express “negative emotions” that the Chinese government does not like: frustration, pain and a sense of powerlessness that “no matter what I do, I can’t change my destiny.”
The voice of youth
This is a small yet important entry point to gain insight into Chinese lives. These songs illustrate the real feelings of the younger generation, and prove that discontent and anger are growing. To avoid censorship, these songs employ semantic ambiguities like “the earth” or “the world”. It’s not difficult to see where their anger is directed: the government. When they gather on platforms and in carriages to sing, it is not just to complain; it is a form of resistance. It is far from shaking Beijing’s rule, but enough to fissure the iron wall through which a little light can shine.
Listening to these songs was a new experience for me. I was born in 1974, not long before Mao Zedong’s death and the end of the Cultural Revolution. Several years later, the country turned its eyes from “class struggle” to making money. I witnessed the so-called “Chinese Miracle” over the next four decades. Although it was still a communist country, our incomes rose, and China became the world factory. Countless skyscrapers were built, and almost everyone had a smartphone. At the same time we still didn’t have the right to vote or much freedom of expression.
We have sung countless songs over the past four decades, including the cringe-worthy “O Party, My Dear Mom” and “The Sun the Reddest, Chairman Mao the Dearest”. Even decades on from Chairman Mao’s passing, this song can be heard anytime and anywhere in China. But the most popular songs are, unsurprisingly, positive and uplifting. We sang “Tomorrow Will Be Better” in the 1980s and “Let our smiles/filled with youthful pride/ let’s look forward to a better tomorrow”. We sang “My Future Is Not A Dream” in the 1990s and “I know/ my future is not a dream/ I seriously live in every minute”. “I want to Fly Higher” was popular in the first decade of the new millennium. “I know the kind of happiness I am looking for/ is up there in the sky/ I want to fly higher”, it went. These songs expressed our true feelings, and also proved that even in this autocratic country, people can still have hope.
Over the years, there have also been many songs of loss and sadness, mostly related to love, homesickness or reminiscence. Brave singers like the rock musician Li Zhi sang “It is the best of times, and people don’t need freedom” to express dissatisfaction with the political system. Li even dared to go near Tiananmen: “Now this square is my grave,” he sang. “Everything is just a dream.” His music gained traction and suffered the fate of a lot of contentious music that became popular – it was silenced. His channels were blocked from all avenues online. He even briefly disappeared. He’s hardly reaching commuters on the subway today.
Still, try as the government might to control music and use it to channel positivity, it fights against the long tradition within Chinese society of singing songs of despair, anguish and denouncement.
It’s hard to know exactly when the new trend for depressing songs began. Some songs have been banished from social media, while others perhaps never caught on. What is certain, however, is that Xi Jinping’s new era is a major reason for the creation of these songs. Years of anti-market economic policies and the brutal lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic have led to the closure of many Chinese companies. The super affluent have fled, the middle class have become poor, and the poor have become penniless. In many cities, it’s now easy to find young people who, unable to find a job and with no clear sense of where to go, end up sleeping on the street.
Laying flat
Xi’s administration has damaged not only China’s economy – it has also destroyed the hope and confidence of the Chinese people, especially of the younger generation. No matter how much the communist propaganda machine boasts, life for young people is getting harder and harder. Job struggles feed into other challenges; it’s difficult to afford a house, raise children, and live a decent life like their parents did, while a single illness can wipe out the savings of many for half, or even their entire, lives. Words like “dream” or “future” no longer inspire and frustration has swept across the country. Tang ping (Laying flat) has become a popular term to reflect a new trend – those who are rejecting the rat race in favour of a more ascetic, monastic life: no house, no car, no children, no falling in love, no getting married.
Against this backdrop, these new songs appeared. “I’ve Been In This World” gained traction in 2022. A year later it was “When I’m Done With All This Suffering”, “So You Said, Sweetness Will Follow Bitterness” and “The Age When Sugar Is Not Sweet”. Then in 2024 it was “I Finally Believed in Fate”, the one sung on the subway.
Probably fearing his work would be deleted, the author of “I Finally Believed in Fate” released a completely contrary version online, with the original “I’m tired of the unfairness of the world” changed to “I realised that fate is the fairest of all!” Unsurprisingly, the new version is not as popular as the old. Anyone who knows China well can easily understand the concern he felt.
The sound of resistance
In countries like China, protests are often moderate and meek rather than violent, with many people kneeling, crying and pleading in front of government buildings when they are treated unfairly. But even these “kneeling protests” are often met with violent evictions, beatings or arrests. Singing a sad song on a subway doesn’t seem like a risqué thing to do for most, but the young people who composed and sang them have crossed a government red line. The Orwellian Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will not sit idly by. Already many songs have been “cancelled” and many videos of the subway chorus have disappeared. Still, for young people, the loss of jobs, opportunities and hope is more important. Many will not be halted by fear, and will continue to sing the depressing songs rather than “O Party, My Dear Mom”.
In the post-pandemic era, young Chinese people have initiated many unexpected actions: crawling on all fours through campuses in the dead of night, and riding bicycles to another city in numbers of up to 500,000, until the government forcibly stopped it. From time to time, there are extremely tragic actions taken, such as group suicides. And let’s not forget the famous “White Paper Revolution”, in which many young people took to the streets holding up blank sheets of paper to express their unspeakable anger. Because of this, Xi’s regime ended its brutal Covid-zero policy in an undignified and haphazard manner.
Like these actions, composing depressing songs and singing them in public places is a way for young people to demonstrate their will to resist, and this resistance will not stop because of the government’s intimidation and repression.
Ken lives alone in a small room in a rented apartment beyond Beijing’s 5th Ring Road, on the outskirts of the city. He doesn’t have many friends and desperately wants to fall in love. He’s now ready to leave Beijing because he feels “too tired and couldn’t realise any dreams”. But what he saw and heard on the subway last September inspired him. He’s now writing his own melancholy song called “May Every Good Person Have a Good Death”. Although it’s still inchoate, he hopes to find someone to compose the music for it and post it online so that more people can hear his voice.
He expands on how much the scene on the subway touched him. “I almost missed my station, and I kept thinking about it. I used to feel lonely, and even had a thought that death might be an easier way to live, but at that moment, I suddenly realised that I wasn’t that lonely.” A hint of a smile appears on Ken’s face. “I still have comrades – many, many comrades.”
22 Aug 2025 | Africa, Americas, Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Guinea-Bissau, Hong Kong, Iran, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Russia, United Kingdom, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at a human rights defender sentenced to death in Iran, and a crackdown on media freedom in Guinea-Bissau.
The price of rebellion: Human rights defender sentenced to death in Iran
Iranian human rights defender Sharifeh Mohammadi has had her death sentence confirmed by Iran’s supreme court, for the crime of “Baghi” or “rebelling against the just Islamic ruler(s).”
Having been sentenced to death in July 2024, her sentence was then overturned in October that year due to “flaws and ambiguities” by the same branch of the Supreme Court that confirmed it this week.
Mohammadi, who advocates for women’s rights and labour rights, was first arrested on 5 December 2023 while on her way home from work. She has remained imprisoned ever since, and her family allege that she has been subjected to torture and several months in solitary confinement. Her cousin, Vida Mohammadi, stated that her charges were “not based on justice from the outset but rather on a scenario fabricated by the Intelligence Ministry.”
Access denied: Portuguese media outlets shut down in Guinea-Bissau
The authorities in Guinea-Bissau have ordered the closure of two Portuguese media outlets, LUSA and RTP and the discontinuation of local broadcasts of RTP, ordering their journalists to leave the country.
The authorities did not provide an explanation for their actions but promised to release a statement, which has yet to be shared. While President Sissoco Embaló declined to give a reason for the measure, he reportedly told journalists it is “a problem between Guinea-Bissau and Portugal.”
The act is being viewed as part of Embaló’s broader crackdown on media freedom within the country.
Safety not guaranteed: Hong Kong summons UK envoy after activist offered asylum
Hong Kong has summoned British and Australian envoys after both nations granted asylum to individuals who fled the territory.
Pro-democracy activist Tony Chung announced on the weekend that the UK Home Office granted his asylum claim. He had been one of the youngest people to receive a jail sentence under Hong Kong’s notorious national security law and left the country in 2023.
The day after, former lawmaker Ted Hui announced his successful asylum claim in Australia.
The move comes as part of a campaign of transnational repression by the Hong Kong authorities to silence those who fled for their safety.
The price for reporting: Ice’s continued detention of Atlanta reporter
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have called for the release of Atlanta journalist Mario Guevara who remains detained by Immigration and customs enforcement (Ice).
Guevara was detained on 14 June 2025 while covering the “No Kings” protest. Shortly after his arrest, prosecutors dropped the criminal charges and an immigration judge granted him bond on 1 July. His family attempted to pay the bond, yet Ice refused to release him and instead transferred him to Gwinnett County on a traffic violation charge. Despite those charges being dropped, Ice refused to release him.
Guevara arrived legally to the USA from El Salvador where he has lived for more than 20 years.
Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project has called for his release, stating “Mario Guevara is being detained solely because of his journalism — specifically his livestreaming of immigration and other law enforcement officials.”
Censored screens: our favourite TV shows are heavily censored in Russia
According to the New York Times, ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian citizens have been turning to streaming platforms for respite.
However, despite watching the same shows we know and love, what we see and Russians see is entirely different. TV shows such as Just Like That, White Lotus, and The Wire have been censored and edited to remove content featuring trans and LGBTQ+ content, reference or mention of President Vladimir Putin or scenes which show intimacy between men.
Since the start of the war, the Kremlin has ramped up its attack on LGBTQ+ rights. Part of their crackdown includes a “gay propaganda” law targeting activists.
20 Aug 2025 | Africa, News and features, Nigeria, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
The air in Lagos hung thick like wet wool, heat rising off the asphalt in visible waves that curled into the sky. Ushie Uguamaye, a 24-year-old National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) member, pressed “record” on her phone, with sweat forming on her forehead and frustration bubbling in her chest.
It was 16 March. She had just left a supermarket and the maths wasn’t adding up. Prices had soared again and her NYSC allowance had evaporated before the month was halfway through. So, like millions of young Nigerians do when the country feels unbearable, she turned to TikTok. No script. No make-up. Just rage.
“Tinubu is a terrible president,” she said – her voice cracking not from fear but from exhaustion.
The video was raw, honest and wildly relatable. It caught fire across TikTok, spiralling into threads, stitches and duets. But it wasn’t just likes and solidarity that followed. Within 24 hours, she had reportedly received threatening calls from NYSC officials. They wanted the video gone.
In the space of a day, a plaintive cry from a weary citizen morphed into a national inflection point. Uguamaye’s unscripted online lament, uttered in a moment of economic despair, crystallised into something far more combustible: a challenge to authority. Her words became a litmus test for the boundaries of dissent in a fragile democracy.
In the aftermath of this impassioned viral video, a ripple of digital dissent surged across Nigerian social media. Her raw expression of frustration kickstarted the #30DaysRantChallenge movement. People congregated online to voice their grievances, from escalating food prices to the erosion of civil liberties. Each post served as both catharsis and indictment, painting a mosaic of a nation grappling with systemic malaise.
Parallel with this, another incident illuminated the tensions between free expression and institutional authority.
During a public event in the southern state of Delta, a group of nursing students responded to an MC’s introduction of the First Lady, Senator Oluremi Tinubu, as “our mother” with the chant: “Na your mama be this?” This spontaneous expression, which was captured and disseminated widely on TikTok, was perceived by many as a subtle rebuke of the administration and a rejection of the First Lady by implying “your mother, not our mother”. The students – particularly the one who posted the video – faced a swift backlash, and had to deliver clarifications and apologies to mitigate potential repercussions.
In a society where traditional avenues for dissent are often fraught with peril, social media emerges as both a sanctuary and a battleground. Yet, as these cases show, the state’s vigilant gaze ensures that even online expression is not beyond reproach.
A legacy of silencing dissent
These digital expressions of frustration are not isolated incidents but rather the latest chapters in Nigeria’s long history of suppressing dissent. From colonial times to the present day, the state’s response to protest has often been marked by repression and violence.
In 1929, the Aba Women’s Riot saw thousands of Igbo women protest against colonial taxation policies. They were met with brutal force by the British authorities, resulting in many deaths. Fast forward to the 1990s, when Nigeria was under a military dictatorship. The execution of environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others for protesting against oil exploitation in the Niger Delta highlighted the regime’s intolerance for dissent and drew international condemnation.
A return to civilian rule in 1999 did not significantly alter this pattern. The 2012 Occupy Nigeria protests against fuel subsidy removal were met with arrests and the use of force. More recently, the 2020 #EndSARS movement, which began as a protest against police brutality, culminated in the Lekki Toll Gate shooting, where security forces opened fire on peaceful demonstrators.
These events are still fresh in the mind of 18-year-old TikTok comedian President Shaks when he is creating content. “I am always really careful with what I post so I haven’t been threatened,” he told Index.
His caution isn’t paranoia but memory. The events of 2020, the blood-stained flags and silenced chants, still haunt Nigeria’s digital resistance.
“A lot of people died trying to protest for a better Nigeria,” said Shaks.
With the streets deemed too dangerous, TikTok and other platforms have become the last refuge for dissent. But voicing dissent online can also come with significant personal risk.
“Even social media isn’t safe,” he added. “They can still come and arrest you in your house if you do too much. Allegedly o.” He adds the “o” at the end of his sentence to emphasise his point.
The global precedent of online censorship
In the evolving landscape of digital governance, the USA has set a precedent that reverberates far beyond its borders. Its government’s actions concerning TikTok have provided a framework that other nations, including Nigeria, have observed and emulated.
In August 2020, during his first term as president, Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13942, citing national security concerns over TikTok’s Chinese ownership. The order aimed to prohibit transactions with ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, unless it divested its US operations. The administration argued that TikTok could be used by the Chinese government to collect data on American citizens or spread propaganda.
Joe Biden’s administration continued this scrutiny. In April 2024, he signed into law a bill requiring ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a ban. ByteDance was given nine months to find a US-approved buyer or the app would be shut down across the USA.
The administration contended that China’s control of TikTok through ByteDance represented a grave threat to national security. While the ban technically came into effect in January, Trump, now in his second presidential term, has so far granted TikTok two 75-day extensions to comply.
These actions have not gone unnoticed globally. In June 2021, Nigeria suspended the operations of X (then Twitter) after the platform deleted a tweet by the then president, Muhammadu Buhari. The government said there had been “a litany of problems” with the platform, including the spread of “fake news” leading to “real-world violent consequences”, and that it was being used to undermine “Nigeria’s corporate existence”.
Nigeria’s move to ban Twitter based on national security concerns mirrored the USA’s rationale for scrutinising TikTok, suggesting that the USA’s approach to online regulation has influenced other nations and provided a blueprint for justifying restrictions on digital expression.
Shaks is concerned that bans could happen on other platforms. “They’ve done it before with X, and TikTok is no different,” he said.
The interplay between national security and freedom of expression continues to be a contentious issue, with the potential to redefine the boundaries of digital discourse – and the actions of influential countries play a pivotal role in shaping global norms.
Comic relief or subversive speech?
In Nigeria, where protest is perilous and grief must be masked, humour has become both the shield and the weapon. In the era of TikTok, where the audience is vast and the state is watching, laughter is no longer just a reprieve but an act of calculated defiance.
“There is a line, ‘cause with the way things are in the country they can arrest you if you do too much,” said Shaks. “That’s why ‘allegedly’ is something people say 100 times to avoid those types of situations when speaking about politics or the state of the country.”
He says his satire is born out of necessity. For him, humour isn’t just creative flair – it’s strategy and survival.
“It started as a way to make such a heavy topic more approachable,” he said. “When you use humour, it feels less like a lecture and more like a conversation.”
Over time, he found that comedy allowed him to “point out the absurdities of corruption” in ways that resonated with audiences. But beneath the punchlines lies a deeper truth: “It’s a coping mechanism. Nigerians use laughter to cover up the fact that we’re going through a lot.”
While he is sceptical about whether online content creation can change things – “the protest in 2020 didn’t change anything” – he continues to post, joke and poke gently at power. His audience, he said, hasn’t turned on him. “Any time I make a joke about politics, I make it as subtle as possible. I don’t do too much, so I have never [had] a negative reaction from the public.”
But in this fragile republic, where truth is dangerous and silence is coerced, even a TikTok skit carries weight. Laughter, after all, is harmless only when the state says it is.
19 Aug 2025 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Scotland, United Kingdom
The head librarian at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh most likely didn’t anticipate that a public call to nominate favourite Scottish books for the institution’s 100th anniversary would ignite a national controversy. But when The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht, a collection of essays by feminist writers including JK Rowling and former MP Joanna Cherry, was voted into the top 200, it sparked a long, fierce internal debate.
The book, which critiques gender self-ID reforms brought forward by Nicola Sturgeon’s government, is polarising. For some, it represents a defence of women’s rights; for others, it feels like a rejection of trans identities and a challenge to the legitimacy of their lived experience.
Faced with this tension, Amina Shah, the National Librarian, sought an equality impact assessment. The advice was mixed. Including the book might lead to protests from LGBTQ+ staff and allies. Excluding it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns had been raised by LGBT+ staff network about the book’s inclusion, and in consultation with the chair of the library’s board Drummond Bone, Shah ultimately decided the book would not be included in the display.
That could have been the end of it. But an FOI request filed by the book’s editors brought the decision-making process into public view and turned a quiet decision into a news story.
Much of the subsequent debate has turned on language. Some headlines have referred to The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht as a “banned book” – a claim others have taken issue with. After all, the National Library of Scotland has said the book is still available in its open reading room. Others have wrongly claimed it was removed after the exhibition began in June, rather than not being part of the display to begin with.
In this kind of charged environment, misinformation spreads quickly. So let’s be clear: the public was invited to select Scottish books for the Dear Library exhibition, created to mark the centenary. Apparently 523 books were nominated and the 200 that received the most nominations would make the main display. The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht made the cut with four votes. It was the only title (as far as we know) excluded from the display after qualifying. That’s not an impartial act of curation. It’s a deliberate exception. And exceptions based on viewpoint deserve scrutiny.
At Index, we’ve just reprised our role as the UK lead for Banned Books Week. We don’t champion books because we always agree with them, or even because we find them palatable. We champion them because books must be a space where ideas – even deeply uncomfortable ones – can be explored.
In recent years, we’ve seen how frequently books on LGBTQ+ themes are targeted for removal, particularly in the United States. In the UK, too, we’ve seen troubling signs: last month a Reform MP urged libraries in Kent to remove books on trans issues. We called it out. In that case, as here, defenders said it wasn’t censorship – the books were still available, just not in the spotlight.
Curation is never neutral. What gets displayed, what doesn’t, what is “safe” enough to be seen, these are all decisions that shape the cultural landscape. These decisions matter. A book moved from the front shelf to the back is a signal.
Some say the book in question promotes “hate”. They’re entitled to that view and indeed entitled to protest its inclusion. It’s also important to acknowledge that for many LGBTQ+ readers and staff, this isn’t just a political disagreement. It’s personal and painful. In a liberal democracy though, even speech that offends or unsettles us deserves protection, especially in books, where the whole point is to wrestle with complex, often conflicting, ideas. Books that are deemed “dangerous” or “offensive” have always existed. Many are now considered classics. Others remain debated. In all cases, open dialogue – not quiet removal – is the better path forward.
Ironically, the decision to exclude the book has only amplified its reach. In what some are calling a classic case of the Streisand Effect, sales have surged on Amazon. People are talking about it more than they ever would have otherwise.
And now, the consequences have broadened. One of the exhibition’s funders is reportedly unhappy. There’s speculation that Shah could face professional consequences. That, too, would be a mistake. This is, after all, a very fraught space. Shah was clearly trying to do, with the backing of her chair, what she thought was right, balancing the concerns of staff, readers and the broader public. She was between a rock and a hard place, a damned if do, damned if don’t situation. Instead of continuing with the message that you can face professional risks either way, we should be asking how we can hold space for difficult conversations, without silencing people on either side. Because this isn’t just about one book, or one exhibition. It’s about a moment in which institutions are being pushed and pulled by opposing forces, and trying, often imperfectly, to chart a course through it all.
Ultimately, we need space for discomfort, for disagreement, and above all, for empathy. That’s how democracies grow – not by hiding books away, but by reading them, debating them and understanding why they matter.