I’d like to propose a corollary to Godwin’s law: As an internet thread gets longer, the probability of someone invoking free speech to prop up an otherwise unsustainable argument approaches 1.
Free speech is a tricky beast: it’s one of the most precious aspects of our civilisation, and yet, in many practical day-to-day situations it can turn out to be worthless, contributing nothing but misinformation, spreading rumour and insinuation, and damaging ourselves and others.
In discussion, the “free speech” card is sometimes played in earnest by sensitive souls who misinterpret honest rebuttal or refutation as an attempt to silence them. It is at other times used dishonestly to distract from paucity of evidence or logical flaws in the accuser’s position - attack being considered the best form of defence.
If we look at speech in the blogosphere, newsprint and on TV, we see that it is all free. But how much of it is ethical?
For even a rudimentary ethics of free speech must consider the effect on the audience, or their subsequent actions.Consider the quip that the right to free speech does not extend to shounting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Consider from a humanistic standpoint the Biblical injunctions against gossip. I’m not referring to the commandment against bearing false witness – since few if any consider free speech to exculpate lying. But rather there are a number of verses that have been interpreted as admonishments against repeating bad tidings about someone – even if factually true – in cases where it’s irrelevant or unhelpful to do so.
Recall also that the concept of free speech embodied in the U.S. Constitution is a defensive right, not an assertive right. That is to say, the First Amendment was intended primarily to defend individuals against state attempts to persecute them for how they worship, what they say and with whom they associate. It was not intended as a carte blanche to shoot one’s mouth off.
It seems that the greatest beneficiaries of free speech may be democracy - and relativism. The views of amateurs, the uninformed, or the prejudiced receive equal free-speech protection as those of carefully considered, well-researched experts. This is a great bulwark against arguments from authority and orthodoxy, and at the same time a means for soapbox populism to overwhelm rational discourse.
I’ll also pre-empt Godwin’s law on this thread and invoke Hitler from the get-go. The biopic Manufacturing Consent on the life of Noam Chomsky details an unhappy episode in which he defended the free speech rights of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. His credible defence for this stance was Voltaire’s famous reasoning that support for another’s right to say something does not infer endorsement of what they say. Chomsky’s concluding remarks on the matter were: ‘It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers.’
But later film footage shows Chomsky intoning to a gaggle of undergrads that there are only two positions on free speech – you’re either in favour of free speech, or you’re against free speech. It’s almost as though he’s channelling the future “central doctrine” for the War on Terror – you’re either with us or against us!
In my view, the right to free speech remains absolute. But if we are capable of ethical agency, we retain the ability to monitor and moderate the extent to which we avail ourselves of this freedom. We need to harmonise our freedom of speech with the ethical responsibility for the consequences of what we say.
Some questions to ponder:
- When does your right to free speech trump the dignity of others?
- When is it more important to preserve respectful and co-operative relations, even at the cost of holding one’s tongue?
- When is it better to adopt some intellectual humility, concede one is out of one’s depth, and just shut up?
- What does it mean for speech to be free, if the cost of that speech is high – in reputation, in psychic distress, in physical damage, or even in lives?
- Have we defended free speech if our remarks damage the social fabric that makes free speech possible?
As Spider-Man creator Stan Lee put it: “With great power comes great responsibility”. Perhaps the value of free speech would be better preserved if we took more notice of the latter than the former.
Historically, the formal right to free speech came into existence only after the creation of mass media.
This observation is important for at least two reasons.
1. Before mass media the only way for someone to get his meaning across was to harangue in a public space. Only a small number of persons could hear this harangue and if local authorities found the harangue to be obnoxious they could suppress it summarily. The creation of mass media provided a megaphone and and archive for opinion. Its creation also gave publishers a stake in staying within the law. Publishers were if they decided to publish material obnoxious to persons in power. Thus publishers became gate-keepers of first resort who censored much material deemed to be obnoxious before it ever appeared in public.
2. The internet has undermined significantly the gate-keeper role of publishers. As a consequence, opinionators have escaped the controls of authority. We live in a post-gate-keeper world where the entire world can potentially access simultaneously the words of a single opinionator.
We may wish that opinionators used their new capabilities more responsibly. That is a question of individual ethics. However, it is true to say that it is now within the power of someone to say anything and for the world to read it. This fact cannot be avoided.
Rather, it is now up to readers to change their attitude to the written word. A partial solution would appear to be that the world should not read anything as if it had been passed as fit to read by some responsible gate-keeper. The more productive approach would be to assume that opinionators are nothing more than village-square haranguers who are more to be pitied than reviled, until there is some credible proof to the contrary.
I would like to throw in the idea of ‘free’ as a measure of price, as relative cost. As in, something cost $10 and something else is ‘free’ as in has no obvious money cost.
I mention this because we frequently are regaled with the term ‘free press’. You know, the ability to print newspapers, magazines etc and perhaps extended to other forms of mass media, that claim the right of freedom to express their opinions.
Which most certainly are not ‘free’ in at least 2 meanings of the word.
Firstly, they are hugely expensive financially.
Does any body have an estimate of how much the Australian News Ltd rags would cost to buy?
Billions of dollars? That’s not ‘free’.
Secondary they are nor ‘free’ as in freedom of access.
Both Rupert and I have kids but wheras his kids were given the privilege and ‘freedom’ to control the expression of opinions in News Ltd companies and thus influence the thoughts of millions on this topic and other, my kids did not.
That ‘freedom’ is restricted, exclusive, limited to very, very, few and at the expense of all others who were not born to Rupert and his ilk.
I believe, with limitations set by various laws of defamation, free speech includes lying. You can’t be arrested for lying generally speaking. This varies from place to place of course. In the English speaking world the two poles are the UK (with strict liable laws) and the US with well protected free speech rights. If lying were not protected by free speech the advertising industry, politicians and several pundits (Ann Coulter comes to mind) would be locked up.
>
Your questions are pretty good ones. But of course every single one of them is arguable. The first for example is being evoked by the (Islamic) religious right against criticisms or lampooning of Islam. Somehow Islam is supposedly exempt from free speech. In Europe of course this has been an increasingly serious issue arising from the conflict between modern and democratic secularism and a tradition theocratic mentality which on the issue of, say, depictions of the Prophet they are at incompatible loggerheads at least according to certain strands of the Faith. The Religious Right of other faiths have of course invoked similar objections altho’ they’ve been tamed somewhat by the Enlightenment.
>
Many groups not just religious ones often argue for the tempering of free speech on the grounds that they are offended or otherwise inconvenienced. My view is: you’re offended. So?
>
It is of course impolite to attack someone’s dignity for the sake of it. But it happens in every playground. The second point is also a matter of courtesy. And yes people are discourteous and rights help them to be. It is essential for the survival of robust democracy that rights are balanced by duties and your last point addresses this. Advocates of totalitarian ideologies frequently utilize the rights of a democratic citizenry to bring about the destruction of those rights. But that cannot be avoided. If you make adherence to liberal democratic values an inherent requirement of the citizenry you erase liberal democratic values.
>
The third I imagine might be inspired by our recent stoush elsewhere. And as hard as you might find it to believe I do think it’s a good question and try to bear it mind when discussing certain things. However there are many forums for speech and modes thereof. If one is speaking from a position of authority that is different from a rubharb on a blog. In a bull session you can say whatever it’s a casual contest and there’s no law in the Arena. In a book that’s a different matter. But that doesn’t stop people publishing nonsense or reading it.
>
Ultimately tho’ the value of discourse comes out under the scrutiny of the audience. You can, and have, asked for evidence to back up assertions. If one can’t provide such it undermines one’s arguments. If one doesn’t shut up and listen one doesn’t learn hence one’s discourse remains unimproved.
>
However one should be careful in requesting evidentiary support for an assertion. One might get it.
Katz, Adrien - an ethics of readership? - hmmm, I like it!
*dons village-square hempen tunic*
*climbs atop soapbox*
*awaits hurled rotten cabbage*
There has never been such a thing as free speech in the sense that one can utter words that cause damage to others with impunity. The issue of regulation or suppression by the state is different to the issue of liability for damage caused by civil wrongs. If somebody defames me and causes me material loss I would certainly not concede them the defence of ‘free speech’, even though more limited defences such as truth or public interest might apply.
It’s more constructive I think to talk about an unfettered right to express OPINION, as long as it is clearly identified as such and not dressed up as fact. Therefore I oppose measures like the racial vilification laws and laws against expressing sympathy with terrorists to the extent that they punish the expression of opinions.
The most tricky bit is the extent if at all to which libel, slander and fomenting social discord, in the form of lies presented as facts, should become the subject of criminal as well as civil action. Doing that issue justice would go beyond the scope of a blog comment but matters like the degree of damage to the public interest as opposed to private interests and the practicability of getting meaningful relief using civil remedies are pertinent factors.
Some people here are confessing their lack of historical matters with their passion to assume.Having done leafletting,brochuring ,flimsy paper in the letterbox,stuff.As a moment until someone corrects this stuff,as older than the newspaper printing press,you should all be ashamed.If,no-one shows up correcting the moments of passion,then this site will become like a busted temperature gauge.
To give examples:
- If someone alleges that I fornicate with cats and I can prove that it has caused me significant harm, they should be liable for damages in private civil action;
- If someone says I am the kind of person who would love to fornicate with cats, well that’s just robust debate;
- If someone claims that as a matter of fact, university lecturers on the Gold Coast habitually fornicate with cats AND this causes unrest amongst the feline community to the extent that said lecturers find their jeans being shredded so often they are reluctant to appear in public BUT the cost and inconvenience of taking individual civil action is not worth it for any one lecturer AND it is likely this would not deter the offenders anyway, then there is an arguable case for some state criminal sanctions. Assuming of course that the claims are false, which as far as I know they are.
“… and I can prove that it has caused me significant harm …”
The allegation I mean, not the fornication.
We do not have/never have had and never will have an absolute right to free speech. Neither should we have that right.
However in the special, limited case of political free speech, I agree with Chomsky.
A more fundamental question is: In accordance with which specifics of which laws (inc parts of Federal & state Constitutions & constitutionally ratified amendments) do Australians claim the right to free speech?
Certainly in a court of law one is legally bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; except what clever lawyers can convince a judge to disallow because of some technicality - a legal nicety at odds with the whole truth.
Rights to free speech have been presumed under Magna Carta’s “seek redress and bring petitions to the King and his Council” - always remembering there are several versions of it, and many ways of translating the correct sense of the wording; but this “presumption” is neither explicit nor guaranteed. More to the point, as Queenslanders discovered after Joh passed his Street March laws, Magna Carta is not automatically subsumed into Oz law, but over-ridden by the wording of state and federal constitutions - in much the same way as the Petition & Bill of Rights’ statement Parliament can not be dismissed, except of (?by) its own consent has, at state & federal level, been over-ridden by the stated constitutional roles of Governors & Governors-general.
“Free speech” can be defined by legal limitations. Lying about another person, or the person’s intentions, is illegal; but so is telling the truth, if it is uttered “with malice aforethought”. Moreover, libel is severely limited by the myths that have developed to stop people from pursuing those who lie or speak with “malice aforethought” - especially politicians and mass-media.
Equivocation (Jesuiticism) has been legally recognised since the Reformation; so there is a legal difference between “Truth” and “Honesty”; that is, Howard’s claims that “no one told me”, when he was asked if he “knew about”, is Jesuitical equivocation, intended to mislead, but not “Untruthful”.
Plagiarism, breaking copyright laws, is being extended through “intellectual property” Laws - but still very contentious.
Conventions have protected “the secrecy of the confessional” and, more latterly, certain professionals’ secrets (a person’s lawyer; those fully-qualified as medical practitioners - but not “doctors” or “medical practitioners” per se). Journalists claim the right to “protect sources”, but are not legally protected; nor are teachers, school counselors etc.
New media bring new questions about “freedon of speech” v “individual rights”; so we are now debating: When does “freedom of speech” become “cyber-stalking”; cyber/SMS bullying “conspiracy to …”, especially if the victim suffers adverse medical/ financial etc problems? Why do politicians have to put up with their rivals’ “making up” / “beating up” etc - and media propagating the lies?
Certainly “Freedom of Speech” is one of the UNO’s “Four Freedoms”; but remains without a definitive elaboration, and is not enforceable in nations’ domestic dealings -unless what’s said breeches over-riding UNO laws.
So exactly what “freedom of speech” do Australians enjoy? What definitions (or set of them) exist to indicate what can and cannot be said or/and be repeated - by word of mouth, in print, in AV media (official media or unofficial Internet-based)?
mercurius,
There is also a duty on the listener / reader to act responsibly with the speech that has been heard or read. If I heard a firebrand preacher saying that gays had no right to exist and could, and should, therefore be killed it is imcumbent on me to, at the very least, not act on that preaching. At the best, I should argue actively against it when I hear it.
Another bad possibility would be for me to pull out a gun and shoot the preacher for pedalling hate-speech.
It is not the speech that causes the harm - it is people acting on that speech after believing it. I would argue that this is the more important point. If this one is the what we act on then the speech would be truly powerless. Shooting, nailing up or imprisoning the preacher would merely make his/her views more known.
Good point DeeCee we actually don’t enjoy a ‘right to free speech’ except by cultural convention. Of course in the absence of a culture supporting rights the rights themselves are worthless. The constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed many rights that no-one ever actually enjoyed.
Heading for a no measurement of passion! History been lost,and yet ,conventional Australian Citizens were incarcerated and transported!
^ As Australians currently enjoy many, many rights despite the lack of a constitutional Bill/Charter.
Yes, it’s a can of worms, but if we do get a charter, these are the very issues which will be decided on by the judiciary.
I suspect most people want absolute freedom of speech without the seemingly attendent rise in litigousness.
Ridiculous comparison. Bush’s utterance was propaganda; from the same litter as Alert But Not Alarmed and another American stunner, Support the Troops.
You’re either with our policy, or against it;
You support our policy, otherwise you don’t support the troops.
Elementary stuff.
Not having access to the material, I’m presuming Chomsky said that one can really only be either for absolute free speech, or against it. You cannot be pro-absolute free speech ‘but with qualifications’.
I’m not exactly Noam Chomsky’s biggest fan but I do recall reading an interview with him where he articulated his position free speech. It was pretty much an endorsement of say what you will provided you don’t yell ‘fire’. I think his speech re speech is akin rhetorically to Jefferson’s edict that “liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
>
I don’t believe Jefferson was authorizing a license to slander.
I’ve had two posts on this thread been eradicated. Can someone please retrieve one of them from the spaminator?
Done!
*Crossing fingers*
Adrien wrote:
Ben Stein and the makers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed also come to mind. Expelled is a crass piece of creationist propaganda, and Ben Stein and Expelled have become notorious in the blogospere for equating atheism and scientific naturalism with the rise of Nazism. There is a piece in the film where 15 seconds of Imagine, are played against a backdrop of Hitler, Stalin and Nazi rallies. But this has gone beyond simple lying. It seems the movie-makers have deliberately set out to rip off the song in order to create a controversy that will draw attention to their anti-scientific cause.
They have provoked Yoko Ono to take them to court, but instead of backing down, as honourable Christians would do, they have cried “Persecution!”, and have trotted out the “free speech” doctrine to defend their theft of the song.
A recent post on their blog discusses the issue.
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/
Of course they have not just commented on the song as their blog alleges. That would simply involve Ben Stein quoting the relevant lyrics. Instead, they have shamelessly used a section of the song without permission. You may be able to lie and get away with it in real life, but you can’t lie in court and get away with it.
DeeCee re:
The “some technicality” you refer to is the Evidence Act, essentially common between the Federalistas and NSW.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/
(Annotated hard copies of this Act of which Mr Odgers seems to have a partial monopoly are stuffed not with “some technicalities” but an order of magnitude of such high complexity that I, for one, am most happy when I leave it to the barrister.)
In general, on the subject of free speech, the area that interests me is the anti-vilification law in Victoria. I have supported it in the past and continue to do so for the following reasons as an exception to the general rule: importantly as a consequence of current world events in relation to L’affairs Islamic:
1) A significant proportion of Muslims worldwide believe that the “west” has declared war on them. (Bush’s comment on Gulf War 2 being a crusade did IMHO an enormous amount of damage.)
The cartoons from Denmark illustrate the point: I don’t think it was wise to stir up another hornet’s nest to further infuriate those with the wherewithal to cause the west more mayhem in Iraq or elsewhere. If that was ever a case of incitement, see point (2)
2) The Victorian legislation comes very close IMHO (in relation to the two Dannys case) to the common law of incitement. Now I’m a bit lazy tonight so I’ll quote wiki:
That is qualified with the required element of intent.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that the 2 Dannys had intention to incite others to commit offences, I’m suggesting that the Victorian legislation was intended to prevent the incitement that MAY be caused by vilification, further down the media inspired moral panic food chain in reporting such ‘vilification’ to Joe Sixpack with easy access to a baseball bat in Lakemba. Given point (1), I think the legislation is valid, for the time being, but take away the neo-cons/Bush/Howardistas/associated war criminals and assume some sanity is restored in Middle East foreign policy, then, and only then, the Vic legislation should be repealed.
I’ve followed that one closely myself, Silkworm, one of the most disgraceful episodes in recent history of so called Christians trying to denigrate science with Nazi smears beyond all reason, but worthy of an accolade from Joseph Goebbels for the maxim “if you’re going to tell a porky, make it a whopper.”
Without libeling an individual scientist or (as they tend to be) atheist, this sort of “free speech” is not actionable. I’d call it “sewer speech” though.
Yoko is not the only one pissed off in violation of property rights, they lifted a scientific clip as well. Thankfully Prof PZ Myers and others are giving them curry in the blogsphere.
Many people who like to argue on the internets think that if I say what they’re saying is an inflammatory and damaging load of shit, I’m infringing on their free speech. Wrong - the other side of free speech is that once you’ve unloaded your crap (Anne Coulter comes to mind again - also Bolt, Akerman, Devine and the rest)- I can use my free speech to argue why it’s crap and why (in my opinion) they shouldn’t have said it.
Furthermore, if I delete a comment coming into my blog, again it’s nothing to do with freedom of speech. The person has every opportunity to log into Blogger or Wordpress and publish a blog of their own and put the comment there.
In the case of the infamous Danish Cartoons, a rather pompous friend of mine brought them up in conversation as a marvellous example of Free Speech. I could only groan. Here’s why I don’t think those things come under the rubric of “free speech”:
-The cartoons were never taken down or refused publication, they just provoked a lot of comments against them. That is not a denial of FS (see first sentence).
-They were not a matter of reportage or even opinion, beyond a very crude “Mohammed’s a terrorist hurh hurh hurrrhhhh!” level.
-They were a deliberate windup and really, a demonstration of privilege by the dominant group against an out-group which was suffering social odium because of the actions of a few. Rubbing their faces in it.
-Adrien’s schoolyard comment is apt - that kind of “hurh hurh” humour (and the crudeness of the artwork) really belonged in the schoolyard, not in a daily newspaper.
-It could have led to, or may well have led to, increased harassment of muslims in public places, egging of houses/cars, assaults - usually on the more visible muslims, i.e. hijab wearing women, who ironically are the ones the Western jingoists like to pretend they are so concerned about.
-It could have led to, and I think it has led to, young hotheads going over the edge about it and leading to more violence, thereby perpetrating the cycle - and do you think the cartoonists were sorry about that? I don’t.
People who pointed out those things were the ones who were slapped down.
Would you walk into your CEO’s office and say “Hey you f356ing c^&*, give me a pay rise NEOW!”? Only children think “free speech” means No Rulez.
Anti-vilification laws are not “anti-incitement” laws by any stretch of the imagination. They don’t ban the incitement of a criminal offence (inciting a criminal offence, such as violence, was already banned before “anti-vilification” laws came into being, so nothing new is added there). Their effect is actually to ban the incitement of emotions (on narrow and, it goes without saying, hypocritical grounds). If supporters of anti-vilification laws truly advocate the prohibition of emotions, then the logical step for them is to support BLANKET laws against the incitement of emotions. That is to say, it would behoove supporters of these laws (who have provided no evidence whatsoever that hatred on the basis of race or religion is more injurious than hatred on the basis of class) to demand that said laws be appropriately changed so that it would be illegal to incite hatred, period, on any grounds.
There is as much justification for banning the incitement of envy as there is the incitement of hatred (insofar as we hold “emotions” responsible for the creation of monstrous egalitarian tyrannies such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia).
As for the Mohammed cartoons - the sad truth is this: the “prophet” Mohammed was either lying, seriously deluded, or insane when he claimed to be on a mission from God. There is no reason to consider him as anything other than a successful David Koresh. To ban criticism of somebody who was either dishonest or had a screw loose (I’m completely ignoring the meritless claim that an illiterate merchant was ever visited by a flying birdman in a cave somewhere - there is no reason to take this notion seriously), simply to placate people whose delicate sensibilities are hostage to this individual, is essentially to reward ignorance and assault the very foundations of the Enlightment. There is no moral case against publishing the Danish Cartoons.
Kinda missing the point here. This was not a thoughtful piece on religion. This was a baiting exercise designed by an in-group to rub the out-group’s nose in it and exacerbate community tensions, hoping as a side-benefit to incite some violence which could be used to denigrate the out-group still more. As such, it was like Mercurius’ example of shouting “fire!”. If the foundations of the Enlightenment is not to indulge in gratuitous bullying, those foundations are indeed shaky.
Inspired by the positive example of the locking up of David Irving and the negative example of Rwanda I support the beefing up of laws against the incitement of violence. This is where a fairly clear link appeared to exist between some sort of hate-speech or incitement ( Danish cartoons) and some fatal form of violence.
The juries could decide the nuts and bolts of each case naturally but all this rests on one over-riding situation. That is the situation where the web is mostly spreading and the power of the yellow-press and state receding. Provided the overall size and power of the state is in a healthy decline then I think even a libertarian socialist could argue for this strictly limited ( sunset clause of five years for review) increase in the reach and power of the community acting through its democracy in order to defend itself and to minimize violence.
The disgusting sight of Noam Chomsky defending well-known white-supremacists and fascists makes me sick.
“This was not a thoughtful piece on religion.”
Who cares? Since when was a load of unfalsfiable psychobabble meant to be accorded respect by way of a “thoughtful” analysis? There is no reason to waste time in placating lunatics who demand that their (profoundly insulting to non-believers) worthless “creed” be kow-towed to without question.
“This was a baiting exercise designed by an in-group to rub the out-group’s nose in it and exacerbate community tensions, hoping as a side-benefit to incite some violence which could be used to denigrate the out-group still more.”
Your point about “in-groups” and “out-groups” is irrelevant as there is no moral basis to grant legal concessions according to one’s membership of an “out-group”, and furthermore you have no evidence that those who published the cartoons were ever “hoping” to “incite some violence”. Indeed, the only violence that was both incited and carried out was in fact a mass-murder spree across at least three continents by Muslim zealots against random bystanders for which the publishers of the Danish cartoons bear zero moral responsibility - it’s not their problem if a group of glass-jawed pre-Enlightenment theists (who carry the mentality and self-control of toddlers) can’t hack a VERY weak jibe at their fictional “prophet” without resorting to murderous violence.
“If the foundations of the Enlightenment is not to indulge in gratuitous bullying, those foundations are indeed shaky.”
The only gratuitous bullying that was ever carried out occurred entirely on account of Muslim fanatics who advocated and threatened mass-murder at the mildest slight against their fragile sensibilities. The Enlightenment was in fact built on attacking, without any quarter or concern as to their fragile psyches, theists and other irrational authoritarians. Good. There is no logical purpose in paying any attention to the “human dignity” (another barbarous concept that stands in the way of reason) of irrational zealots.
I think people recognize lies when they see it and Expelled is no exception. How can I say that? Well, how do you measure the quality and success of any given movie? You do so by counting the number of bootlegs copies on the street. There aren’t none for Expelled. More at “Why There Are No Expelled and Ben Stein Bootlegs” at http://millenniumwriting.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/why-there-are-no-expelled-and-ben-stein-bootlegs/.
Expelled is a failure as a movie and as a lie.
Erik John Bertel
Author of Flores Girl The Children God Forgot and the Millenniumwriting blog
“Inspired by the positive example of the locking up of David Irving and the negative example of Rwanda I support the beefing up of laws against the incitement of violence.”
What was so positive about locking up David Irving (who was not indicted for inciting violence, contra your example)? If you think you know more about the history of WWII than Irving, why not challenge this incendiary individual to a debate? What are you so afraid of? By the way, you could also have pointed to the negative example of Weimar Germany - it had precisely the kinds of hate speech laws which you guys love to advocate. And didn’t that prove conclusively how marvellous and effective these laws truly are?
“This is where a fairly clear link appeared to exist between some sort of hate-speech or incitement ( Danish cartoons) and some fatal form of violence.”
Except the Danish Cartoons did not incite violence. Nowhere in the cartoons was there any suggestion to commit violence (hate-speech is an entirely irrelevant concept as hatred - which naturally includes Communist hatred of private property owners - is not actually against the law). There was, however, a violent reaction by murderous theists against a very mild prodding of their (lying, deluded or insane) “prophet”. According to your moral universe, if somebody mocked or ridiculed some item that I held dear (such as Aston Villa), and I were to kill someone over it, THEY would be the ones held responsible for incitement!*
“Provided the overall size and power of the state is in a healthy decline then I think even a libertarian socialist could argue for this strictly limited ( sunset clause of five years for review) increase in the reach and power of the community acting through its democracy in order to defend itself and to minimize violence.”
There is no moral basis to aggressing against freedom of association whether it is approved by a simple majority or even a super majority. You are actually calling for an increase in the state, on grounds that are bereft of any moral basis, and a commensurate DECREASE in the power of the community.
“The disgusting sight of Noam Chomsky defending well-known white-supremacists and fascists makes me sick.”
I’m sure the white-supremacists and fascists would also be more than happy to return the favour by defending Chomsky’s right to deny, minimise, and obfuscate the Communist genocide in Cambodia, which is indeed what he did in the late 70s. Surely, Khmer Holocaust Denial should be prohibited, following your own stated satisfaction at seeing David Irving thrown in prison for an intellectual thought-crime, too. Or is defending genocide suddenly acceptable or even laudable so long as it’s carried out in the cause of Marxism?
Steve Edwards, do you feel better for having got that off your chest? I’m glad that you can use your free speech for such an important end.
There may be no “moral case” against publication of Danish cartoons, but this article wasn’t about morals - it was intended to be a discussion of ethics.
Do you have anything to add about the ethics of free speech, or does your personal right to say whatever you like trump all other considerations?
How freely - really freely - do you talk to your boss, your partner, your friends? I’d posit that you’re capable of moderating your own speech when it’s in your interest to do so, but that’s not ethical action, that’s just self-interest. How capable are you of exercising free speech while giving ethical consideration to the interests of others?
And please, don’t react with indignation. You’ve already stated your view that “human dignity” is some sort of quaint anachronism, so I presume you don’t suffer from it.
“Do you have anything to add about the ethics of free speech, or does your personal right to say whatever you like trump all other considerations?”
There is no case for government aggression against freedom of association and exchange, unless people are abusing freedom of association to commit aggression against others (for example, the Muslims who threatened and carried out aggression against random people were clearly not exercising “free speech” in the way that the Danish cartoonists unquestionably were).
“How freely - really freely - do you talk to your boss, your partner, your friends? I’d posit that you’re capable of moderating your own speech when it’s in your interest to do so, but that’s not ethical action, that’s just self-interest. How capable are you of exercising free speech while giving ethical consideration to the interests of others?”"
Seeing as you asked, and noting that this has nothing to do with the government (a very important distinction), that depends on how I feel. When I’m in the mood for tearing down entire worldviews, I’m generally not known for holding back. Other times I can’t be bothered, because I have better things to do. But this has nothing to do with the state, which, in any case, has no business in coddling the sensibilities of grown adults. Truly. We’re not children anymore (although there certainly are scores of millions of grown adults around the world who are desperately trying to convince us otherwise). If you can’t handle the reality of having either you or your imaginary friends made fun of, then, frankly you’re living in the wrong dimension.
“And please, don’t react with indignation. You’ve already stated your view that “human dignity” is some sort of quaint anachronism, so I presume you don’t suffer from it.”
Dignity is defined as “the state of being worthy of honor or respect”. This idea that everybody is automatically “deserving” of “respect” as a consequence of being a member of the human species as opposed to any significant or honourable works of theirs is one of the most barbarous attacks, ever conceived, on the very concept of merit. People have to EARN their dignity by attaining the respect of others through their own works; demanding “respect” purely on account of believing in nonsensical fairy-tales is in fact deserving of severe ridicule and scorn. Perhaps, while, we are at it, we can spare some “respect” for the “dignity” of adulterers, drug-abusers and fathers who go AWOL.
Whether or not people are “worthy” of honour or respect is entirely up to them - there is no reason to be “entitled” to “dignity”.
Steve, thanks for expressing your ideas so precisely.
You’re right about the distinction between ‘free speech’ as a defense against government persecution, and ‘free speech’ as a means to say whatever we like to others. I alluded to this point in the original article that ‘free speech’ as embodied in the US Constitution is a defensive right, not an assertive right.
But I suggest the concept that dignity can be earned or lost due based on what one believes actually works against free speech.
I certainly agree that people can lose dignity (although not their other legal rights) through their actions. Your closing examples of adulterers, drug-addicts and deadbeat dads are signature cases where people can lose ‘honor or respect’ through what they do. But should the same apply to what they believe?
I know plenty of people with all sorts of beliefs that I personally find to be wrong, kooky or even abhorrent, but who lead otherwise blameless lives. I don’t see that any purpose is served by assaulting their dignity on account of their beliefs, and in fact I think to do so would detract from goodwill, for no potential upside. I often choose to use my free speech to attack their beliefs, but not the dignity of the people concerned. I think that is an ethical position.
Whereas I’m worried by the notion that people who believe certain things should not be afforded dignity. I think such notions form the seed of every repressive regime, whether theocratic or secular.
Isn’t how people act more important? I know there are people out there who hold all sorts of views that disgust me and which would be harmful to others. Provided they don’t act out on those beliefs, I have no quarrel with them, even though I publicly state my opposition to those beliefs. I’d also attempt to dissuade them from their beliefs and work to change them if I had a chance to do so. But if I were to go one step further and attack their dignity, I think I’d be working against the cause of free speech and contributing to a repressive, intolerant public atmosphere.
Steve Edwards re
The respective Victorian and NSW legislation, (operative sentences):
Notwithstanding the South Australian legislation which includes the additional requirement that the incitement must “threaten physical harm”, anti-vilification laws necessarily use the word “incite” and it is clear that there is an intimate relationship between common law incitement and such anti-vilification laws. The latter codifies the former but takes away the required element (in common law incitement) of mens rea/intent to incite others to commit an offence.
Hate speech is what it’s all about. Hate speech has a significant tendency to incite violence, ie it wasn’t so long ago that people used to go down to frequented areas in Sydney for a little spot of “poofter bashing”. Clearly common law incitement was ineffective as a legal remedy hence codification and removal of the intent element.
A really useful Sydney Law Review paper here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/2005/10.html
But the Danish cartoons are cartoons. It’s the job of the cartoonist to wind people up, to provoke and infuriate. Reasoned argument isn’t in their job description.
It;s nor their responsibility if some people behave violently because of them, it’s the rsponsibility of those who become violent.
I believe in limits to free speech and an ethics of free speech, but there’s a question of context as well.
The context was exactly what I was talking about. But Fine, you too are missing my point.
I’m not advocating taking these peoples freedom to publish their stuff (and I left out another salient point: the freedom of a newspaper editor to ignore stuff that’s mediocre, risible and nasty.) I’m pointing out that FS includes my right to say why they shouldn’t have published it.
Your comment, ” It’s the job of the cartoonist to wind people up, to provoke and infuriate. Reasoned argument isn’t in their job description. …It;s nor their responsibility if some people behave violently because of them, it’s the rsponsibility of those who become violent” — illustrates exactly why you’re ignoring the context: the cartoons were hate-speech against a community who are at present marginalised in Western society because people conflate them with the actions of a minority - and the cartoons were overtly encouraging and reinforcing that tendency.
And I am as anti-religion, probably, as Steven is, but the motivation to rub peoples’ noses in it is to my mind adolescent, as is the artwork and conception of those cartoons. It’s all very well to bang on about Delicate Sensibilities and you’ll sound very tough, but in the end, if you foment social discord it probably won’t be you who gets a rock thrown at you - it’ll be some kid who only wanted to use the school playground (and so the cycle of violence continues).
Do you think the hateful cartoons of Jews which were widespread in the nineteenth and early twentieth century were OK? If not, how are hateful cartoons of Muslims OK now?
Sorry Fine, I think I got too verbose and obscured my point. Yes, cartoons are to wind up people, partly. But it’s speaking truth to power which is the wonderful thing about political cartoons, not dumping on the powerless. That’s the difference.
“When is it better to adopt some intellectual humility, concede one is out of one’s depth, and just shut up?”
Oh … I’m sorry … I thought this was the internet. Must be in the wrong place.
This is the one thing about internet ‘discussion’ that strikes me as being radically different from RL. On the internet, it seems, nobody ever concedes anything … the given means of responding when out of one’s depth seems to be, rather, calling your opponent an idiot and disappearing.
What about something like Piss Christ or, as a far better example, a painting I saw a few years ago in a NSW gallery which juxtaposed a gigantic vulva, a crucifix, and images of starved children?
I can’t see how the latter work does much more than “incite”. It seems to me to “rub people’s noses in it”. It is hardly a “thoughtful piece on religion”.
Helen, is it ok to incite “truth to power”? To put it another way, which distinction is really more important to you — that the cartoons were “inciting”, or that they were directed at a minority group? Because the latter distinction is not of the Enlightenment at all, it’s a product of post-Marxist domination-based politics. And the two are only superficially compatible.
Helen, I’m not disagreeing necessarily. I agree that free speech includes the right to say something shouldn’t be published. Where I think we need to tread very warily is when there are calls to legislate to stop this sort of stuff being published. Who decides?
For instance you think the cartoons were ‘hate speech’. I disagree with that opinion, but it’s a point that can’t be easily settled.
What I’d rather see is marginalised groups having the tools to use satire and humour to fire back. ‘Salam Cafe’ on SBS is a good example of that. I’m also fully aware that it’s difficult for marginalised groups to get their hands on those tools.
Helen, is it ok to incite “truth to power”? To put it another way, which distinction is really more important to you — that the cartoons were “inciting”, or that they were directed at a minority group? Because the latter distinction is not of the Enlightenment at all, it’s a product of post-Marxist domination-based politics. And the two are only superficially compatible
Well, the verb to “incite” wouldn’t be used so much for mocking the powerful, unless I suppose the powerful official / politician / person was provoked to retaliate. I don’t quite understand your point about the Enlightenment and post-Marxist politics being only superficially compatible; I think as used in this thread, “Enlightenment” is to mean “the reverse of religious and medieval”. But that doesn’t mean you dignify any and every instance of puerile behaviour, just because it’s anti-religious, with the imprimatur of “the enlightenment”. Otherwise we’d have to name Big Brother as its apotheosis.
By “speaking truth to power” I mean that the real hard work of freedom of speech is to protect writers, actors, cartoonists, etc. from the powerful. Sure, if you’re a member of the privileged majority you’re allowed to make schoolyard jokes against a social group to get a rise out of them, because many people hate them at that time in history; but I think crying “freedom of speech” is giving that behaviour too much dignity and I have no respect for it. And that’s how it works - we have freedom of speech, those Danes can go ahead and I can call them on their bullshit, as the Americans say! Unfortunately, the privileged get to think F of S should only go one way.
“Hate speech is what it’s all about. Hate speech has a significant tendency to incite violence, ie it wasn’t so long ago that people used to go down to frequented areas in Sydney for a little spot of “poofter bashing”. ”
If you truly believe that, then that’s an excellent argument for amending each act down to the base level - it should be illegal to incite hatred (insofar as you can “incite” emotions), period. IF it is argued that hatred leads directly to violence, then there is no moral or ethical reason for refusing protection to any person who is the victim of hatred - there is no reason why only people who believe in nonsensical fairy tales should be “protected” from “hatred”, while ordinary people (who indeed can have hatred incited against them, which MAY lead to violence) are essentially left in the dark. To put it another way - passing a law that prohibits the “incitement of hatred on the basis of religion” is as absurd as passing a law that prohibits assault on the basis of one’s clothing attire, while naturally PERMITTING assault against everyone else.
But this is a side point - “hatred” does not “cause” ” racist violence” anymore than “envy” causes the mass-murder of property owners. It is illogical to ban the incitement of something that isn’t actually illegal.
One last thing before I dash off (a necessary qualification):
“And I am as anti-religion, probably, as Steven is, but the motivation to rub peoples’ noses in it is to my mind adolescent, as is the artwork and conception of those cartoons.”
As a recovering theist, even I am not actually “anti-religion”. My significant other is an pseudo Buddhist/ancestor-worshipper, but that doesn’t particularly bother me at all. And certainly I do have a superstitious side (for example, I have personally seen ghosts, I think, on at least 3 occasions). What IS bothering to me is:
-Coercive theism: when people demand either respect or legal privileges solely because they believe in an imaginary friend, which is pitiful behaviour by any standard
-Moral hypocrisy: where disgusting, smug a**holes who quite happily and publicly rejoice in the “knowledge” that those who don’t share their particular brand of unfalsfiable claptrap are going to BURN ALIVE for all eternity (!! - what kind of a FANATIC could actually think that?), a completely severe, unevidenced and unjustified assault on the character; who nevertheless turn into angry, blubbering children, when one of their hated Heathen returns the favour by degrading their non-existent Father, demanding the government step in to protect their fragile psyches. There are no known word groupings that can express just how disgraceful this truly is.
Come on, that could’ve been a little more hyperbolic: you’re not trying hard enough, Steven!
Steve E, re:
I agree with that in principle but I think it has to be recognised that the fairy tale believers constitute far greater numbers in need of protection from other brands of fairy tale believers who have a tendency to believe that their “fairy” gave them licence to kill/beat-up on the other “infidels”. (And vice versa as the case may be)
I think there’s a world of difference between an individual who is hated for his/her looks/quirks/peccadillos/dress/habits and a large minority hated for their beliefs or perceived notions of what their co-religionists are doing in another part of the world.
The secular liberal state certainly has its work cut out for it. In respect of “ordinary people” in a one on one situation, or a relatively small number of thugs against one individual in a public arena, I’ve found that the law of common assault is remarkably effective with (in NSW) a maximum penalty in local courts of 2 years custodial sentence. [Victims need only be (via the prosecutor in criminal law) in fear of an imminent attack]
The laws as I read them are not explicitly directed at “hatred on the basis of religion”, they cover the full gambit of groups that may attract the ire of essentially brain dead rednecks and other odious morons including for example neo-Nazis, fundy Christians or Muslims or whatever. Their victims are potentially any minorities. It just so happened that the only case I know of in Victoria (and I believe the only significant one) is the 2 Danny’s case, and my suggestion is that since we have largely removed the propensity to bash gays/darkies and other minorities by way of education and progressive tolerance enhancement by enlightened leaders, (John Howard excepted)the legislation could be repealed when the last bastion (so it seems to me) of ignorance and superstition via the “fairy” belief is overcome. [Not that I’m branding all theists BTW , but as Weinberg said “for ‘good’ people to do evil, that takes religion.”]
The ‘overcoming’ may take some time, unfortunately.
Prof Rat -
He wasn’t defending them or their views. He was defending their rights. Most people who crap on about free speech only do so to secure their own. They only indulge others as part of the bargain. If they could eradicate their enemies whilst maintining their own liberty they would. When Chomsky, an anarcho-syndacalist and a Jew, defends Nazis, he’s doing as Voltaire said. That’s honourable.
Silkworm - It’s woth pointing out that Creationism/ID is not the sole province of Christians. Ben Stein is a Jew and Turkey is becoming a contender to challenge the US’s position as the Home Of Creationism.
>
I think Expelled is wonderful. From its beginning where PZ Myers is muscled out of the premiere but Richard Dawkins is fine to Ben Stein appearing on various Apocalypso nutbag shock jock hours saying Science=Nazism (um how did television come about dickhead?). And whoever thought Ben Stein was a good idea for a Crusading Talking Head. FFS! Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
>
What economics? Voodoo economics. I did get the guy’s How To Ruin Your Financial Life however. He’s got a good sense of humour. It’s interesting how faith imposes the CRM-114 discriminator on otherwise bright people. But Expelled. That lot’re no competition.
>
Ann Coulter’s Godless that how it’s done. That woman knows how to lie. She would tho’. She’s a lawyer.
Steve Edwards -
>
Steve your contemptuous generalisations viz Islam put me in mind of someone who writes off Christianity on the basis of some inbred Southern Baptist lynch party. I won’t bother illustrating Islamic culture’s past glories or even the fact that in that world everyday people are possessed of social graces we’ve yet to develop in the Illustrious West.
>
I don’t care for religious extremists. But most Muslims are nothing of the kind. If I indulged in pity I might be inclined to lend you some.
“Steve your contemptuous generalisations viz Islam”
What contemptuous generalisations? The only points I’ve made here were that the “prophet” Mohammad was either lying, deluded or insane when he dictated the Koran (a point on which you, as a non-Muslim who has also rejected Mohammad’s risible claims, evidently agree with me). If you DON’T agree with me, then I’ll invite you to take the shahada, right now (which you, by logic, must do if you don’t believe that Mohammad was a liar, insane, or suffering from some shade of delusion).
“I agree with that in principle but I think it has to be recognised that the fairy tale believers constitute far greater numbers in need of protection from other brands of fairy tale believers who have a tendency to believe that their “fairy” gave them licence to kill/beat-up on the other “infidels”. (And vice versa as the case may be)”
You have provided no evidence for any of this, and in any case, what you’re really advocating is that their superstition will be accorded statutory protection (that is, of all of the deeds you might carry out that could attract the hatred of others, only your belief in fanciful nonsense will be granted protection from said hatred). Religious believers deserve no special rights that are unavailable to the rest of us (the fact that they often lose their tempers over the mildest slights is THEIR problem, and warrants no special consideration); REWARDING people for the ignorance and stupidity is the antithesis of a meritocracy.
“I think there’s a world of difference between an individual who is hated for his/her looks/quirks/peccadillos/dress/habits and a large minority hated for their beliefs or perceived notions of what their co-religionists are doing in another part of the world.”
People get beaten up all the time by others on precisely these grounds. If you don’t want to afford them the same protection as others, then it’s pretty clear that you have rejected the entire basis of civil equality. In any case, there is no such thing as a “right” not to be hated by another person.
Further on that point - laws aren’t created on the basis of “need”. They are made towards the aim of attaining justice. If zero murders were committed in 2008, that wouldn’t justify the repeal of laws against murder. REGARDLESS of how many people are vilified on the basis of ANY attribute of theirs, if you truly believe that vilification leads to violence, you are morally obliged to advocate a complete ban on vilification.* Or is some violence more equal than others?
“The laws as I read them are not explicitly directed at “hatred on the basis of religion”, they cover the full gambit of groups that may attract the ire of essentially brain dead rednecks and other odious morons including for example neo-Nazis, fundy Christians or Muslims or whatever.”
They SPECIFICALLY cite race and religion. Interestingly, the laws leave out property or class. Why, given the abominable record of communism, should we EVER allow the proliferation of envy in a society? Do we really need to kill yet more people? There is no moral justification for tolerating violence against the bourgeoisie, assuming people believe that vilification leads directly to violence (for which, as I’ve already pointed out, the evidence is remarkably thin). And in any case, none of the advocates of vilification law have taken the obvious step of agitating for a ban on hatred itself (which, ridiculously, means that it is essentially illegal to “incite” something that is itself not illegal).
*The usual point that supporters of vilification laws might make here is that we should only concentrate on banning the MOST “serious” forms of vilification, which they allege on the basis of no evidence to be racial and religious forms. But this is an absurd argument at doesn’t even make it to first base - it’s identical to arguing that we should legalise rape on the grounds that it’s “nicer” to rape somebody than to murder them.
Nonsense, that’s an erroneous interpretation. I’m advocating anti-vilification law to prevent violence to anybody, within the scope and framework of that law, even for those whose beliefs I personally find intelletually rotten to the core. Religion unhappily seems to be the cause of most mass violence these days as several hundred thousand Iraqi’s would testify to, but they can’t.
The fact that some theists have beliefs that might be considered obnoxious to others doesn’t mean they are disentitled to any or all statutory protection. OTOH the fact that positive discrimination by legislation is allowed under the UN for indigenous peoples for example, might be anaethma to civil libertarians, but it sure doesn’t disentitle others of their existing legal rights and remedies. (except for a few bob of course.)
You’ve ignored my point on the criminal justice system and assault, common or with actual violence assault occasioning or grievous bodily harm. Vilification laws are not meant to replace or even supplement this criminal justice regime at the individual level, how could they?
You’ve just canned the whole process and rationale of common law, let alone statutory.
Free speech is a balancing act against legitimate competing interests. To equate repealing an anti-vilification act with repealing the crime of murder is not valid as there are no competing interests justifying murder (not being self defence).
Who exactly is justifying it? You appear to be saying that because one section of legislation is directed against vilification of significant minority groups ie gays, indigenous, minority theists, or women for example, it means that because that legislation doesn’t protect individual “bourgeosie” its proponents are automatically supporting violence against said bourgeoise individual? Preposterous.
Because it’s not an obvious step. Emotion cannot be legislated away. Emotional hatred leading to crime whether of small or large dimensions can and is legislated against–in the case of anti-vilification laws, in specifically defined ways, it says “keep your emotional hatred to yourself, out of the public arena.” The legislation is very specific on public utterance as against private.
“Nonsense, that’s an erroneous interpretation. I’m advocating anti-vilification law to prevent violence to anybody, within the scope and framework of that law, even for those whose beliefs I personally find intelletually rotten to the core. Religion unhappily seems to be the cause of most mass violence these days as several hundred thousand Iraqi’s would testify to, but they can’t.
The fact that some theists have beliefs that might be considered obnoxious to others doesn’t mean they are disentitled to any or all statutory protection. OTOH the fact that positive discrimination by legislation is allowed under the UN for indigenous peoples for example, might be anaethma to civil libertarians, but it sure doesn’t disentitle others of their existing legal rights and remedies. (except for a few bob of course.)”
Yet you would still deny that “right to be protected from violence” to others on the basis of no obvious moral or practical principle. How come?
“You’ve ignored my point on the criminal justice system and assault, common or with actual violence assault occasioning or grievous bodily harm. Vilification laws are not meant to replace or even supplement this criminal justice regime at the individual level, how could they?”
In which case, there is no use for vilification laws. Either you believe that hatred leads to violence, meaning you want to ban the expression of hatred period, or you don’t. There is no moral justification for only according protection to one section of society while denying it to another.
“Free speech is a balancing act against legitimate competing interests. To equate repealing an anti-vilification act with repealing the crime of murder is not valid as there are no competing interests justifying murder (not being self defence).”
You’ve completely missed the point. YOU are the one who believes that hatred causes violence, even though you have provide not a scintilla of evidence to support your penchant for banning any particular kind of hatred. Even if you don’t believe that there is much of a likelihood for non-religious vilification to cause violence, you have no moral basis for legalising it if, as you say, vilification tends to cause violence.
“Who exactly is justifying it? You appear to be saying that because one section of legislation is directed against vilification of significant minority groups ie gays, indigenous, minority theists, or women for example, it means that because that legislation doesn’t protect individual “bourgeosie” its proponents are automatically supporting violence against said bourgeoise individual? Preposterous.”
Don’t blame me - YOU are the one who thinks that vilification causes violence. Seeing as there is unquestionably the chance (under your calculus, not mine) that vilification of property owners can lead to violence (the death toll of 20th century communism, for example), the question arises as to why you would deny them the same protections you’d extend to others. This anomaly cannot be ignored.
“Because it’s not an obvious step. Emotion cannot be legislated away. Emotional hatred leading to crime whether of small or large dimensions can and is legislated against–in the case of anti-vilification laws, in specifically defined ways, it says “keep your emotional hatred to yourself, out of the public arena.” The legislation is very specific on public utterance as against private.”
Fine. So why don’t you demand that ALL people be equally protected