A cheery and light-hearted start to the week. Quotes are slightly simplified summaries from the full post.
America's Whotsit Hitler is threatened by a media reporting unpleasant facts. But Britain's democracy is threatened by a media continuously reporting falsehoods and demonising its opponents. The American government seeks to control the press even as the British press seek to control the government. Fear rules both sides, with different consequences because of their different histories. Fear of the media leads to cruelty by Drumpf and cowardice by the British government. Cruelty by Drumpf because he cannot afford to accept media criticism without appearing weak, so he must suppress them. Cowardice by the UK government for the opposite reason : they cannot afford to avoid the media's demands without looking weak.
Absolute freedom of speech is impossible and stupid. You can't insist that everyone be allowed to barge into everyone else's home and start ranting - forcing people to listen is hardly free speech. And you certainly can't produce a list of flawed instructions for the use of heavy machinery that will get people killed "because you thought it would be funny". So whether you like it or not, you have to draw the line somewhere; your free market just became regulated - albeit perhaps only very lightly. Even so, you inescapably do have a Ministry of Truth of sorts : it's called the judiciary. And it's a damn good thing it exists.
See, the legal definition of free speech it only means, very broadly, "no imprisonment on the basis of what's said". So it doesn't automatically require the media of any form to give any and all views an airing. It doesn't even mean that the Advertising Standards Authority and various other agencies can't stop you promoting and distributing content which is misleading or simply false : this is not impinging anyone's freedom at all, it's protecting you from liars. Instead of granting them freedom to lie to you, it's given you freedom from the consequences of lies.
The question is not, "should we regulate the media ?" at all, because we already do - just as we regulate how food is labelled, what TV content can be shown at what times, what health and safety warnings must be displayed and whether things have to be labelled as "allegations" or not. We've always done this, there was never a mythical golden age where anyone could say whatever idiotic thing popped into their head no matter the consequences. Instead the question is only how much and to what extent the regulation should occur.
I will not end with conclusions, except to say that freedom is a double-edged sword and like all sharp pointy objects it needs careful handling. I'd rather try and provoke a discussion, so I'll end with questions instead. How much do you think the media should be regulated ? Do you think the press currently have the right amount of freedom ? What, if any, penalties would you exact on the media for violating freedom of speech laws ? Should there be limits on media ownership to ensure media independence ? How should we encourage media impartiality without throttling opinions and freedom of thought ? If you think freedom is a virtue in itself and we should have as much of it as possible, how do you maintain this given that freedom sometimes leads to terrible, self-destructive outcomes ?
https://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-sharp-pointy-objects.html
... in the USA, the only way to avoid a torrent of generalities and cant is to refer to specific First Amendment cases. The UK's freedoms of the press and of expression are a dog's dinner of haphazard and ill-considered laws. That'll be quite an interesting consideration, what will the UK do with all those EU Article 10 rights after Brexit.
ReplyDeleteI have donated quite a bit of money to the ACLU over time and plan to donate more. Their positions are my positions, whole and entire:
aclu.org - Free Speech
Dan Weese
ReplyDeleteOver the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners.
So, you would agree that freedom of speech must be protected even if it leads to atrocities ? Why ?
(the "why" is intended as an inquiry, not an accusation)
Rhys Taylor This is a sore subject with me, for I do not believe speech ever drew blood. The First Amendment is not to protect those we admire but those we despise. The important case here is Brandenburg:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio#The_Brandenburg_test_.28also_known_as_the_imminent_lawless_action_test.29
Dan Weese So your position is that there must be some temporal element in the speech before we can deny it. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteStill, I'd argue that speech does draw blood even when it's not a call to immediate action. It seems to me that this is the ultimate culmination of significant hate speech; many violent regimes arise not only because of societal problems but because people have been taught to denigrate and demonise others.
Rhys Taylor That's the basis of the Brandenburg doctrine. Once we start bandying about phrases like "running a great risk" and "not allowing ourselves the luxury" of someone else's intolerance, things start getting ugly. Tolerance is not a luxury. It is an absolute necessity to the maintenance of a free society. Popper should have known better, all that stuff and nonsense about the open society and its enemies. Yeah, liberal democracy is just great until it hears or reads something it doesn't like. Then the veneer peels up and it invariably resorts to the techniques of the despots it claims to hate.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese Then we disagree. I'd rather have the mess. Doesn't look like much real tolerance or freedom at all to me if you allow people to take other people's freedoms away. A free society is not necessarily the same as a good society - it depends what it does with those freedoms.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Well, here's the way it works out, practically. The First Amendment doesn't save anyone from consequences of the horrible things they say. Congress shall make no law, says the First Amendment - but that doesn't stop me from sacking a bigot or boycotting his products and services or excluding him from polite company for offensive speech. Any time a law is made, imagine it first being applied to your worst enemy - a pleasant thought - then to your best friend. Less pleasant.
ReplyDeleteDan Weese I was being quite careful in the OP to differentiate between "not locking people up because of what they say" and "all other forms of regulation [i.e. consequences] regarding speech". My questions were directed more toward the latter : what forms of regulation are permissible regarding the media and individuals, given that they are regulated anyway and that this does not automatically mean the crude approach of imprisoning people on the grounds of their speech content ? And as I also said, I like very much the idea that everyone is free to enact consequences on those they disagree with. My issue is that this does not seem to be preventing the rise of hate speech which ultimately fuels violence.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor I am, however unpleasantly, a First Amendment absolutist. Hate speech might be against the law elsewhere, but not in the USA. The benefits of free speech allow all to speak their mind - as for incitement to violence, the Brandenburg doctrine outlines the limits. There's another important case, putting down a limit between incitement and otherwise permissible speech:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black