an ongoing convo within me: free speech or stfu, you bastard

October 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am Blogged, Personal, Politics,
Tagged as: politics,me,culture,racism,bigotry

update: ultimately, who cares?  my thoughts on the subject don’t amount to a hill of beans.

this may be a rather rambling entry, as it’s an issue i’m working through…

first note: my only real concern is that which is considered “hate speech”

british philosopher john milton argued:

• “that a nation’s unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above;
• that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered;
• and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress.”

milton seems to believe that if the facts are put out there, truth will win out; however no one person is able to act as a censor for all people.

 

 

 

i’m with him right up to the truth winning out.  in a perfect world, sure.  in reality, not so much.

noam chomsky: “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like.  Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked.  So was Stalin.  If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

i agree on an academic level.  all ideas should be freely discussed.

john stuart mill on free speech:

  If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

  If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)

ok, again, on an academic level, i completely agree.

mill’s “harm principle”:

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (1978, 9)

, but the speech would have to directly cause a violation of someone’s rights.  incitement to riot, which led to a clear and direct act of violence against the target, as opposed to a kkk march, which may be offensive, but violates no one’s rights.

broadest definition of free speech…

criticism (arin says, aha!):

george kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups. It also undermines democratic citizenship and stirs up nationalism and jingoism, which results in harm to citizens of other countries. Even worse than political discourse, according to Kateb, is religious speech; he claims that a lot of religious speech is hateful, useless, dishonest, and ferments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt that can haunt persons throughout their lives. Pornography and hate speech, he claims, cause nowhere near as much harm as political and religious speech. His conclusion is that we do not want to ban these forms of speech and the harm principle, therefore, casts its net too far. Kateb’s solution is to abandon the principle in favor of almost unlimited speech.

he is completely right on the effects of political and religious speech, though racist, bigoted speech can cause just as much harm.  to completely abandon the principle… throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

joel feinberg‘s “offense principle”:

Feinberg suggests that a variety of factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether speech can be limited by the offense principle. These include:

• the extent,
• duration and social value of the speech,
• the ease with which it can be avoided,
• the motives of the speaker,
• the number of people offended,
• the intensity of the offense,
• and the general interest of the community at large.

based on the offense principle, a campaign of hate should be easily stopped: the extent (nationwide), duration and social value (immigration debate has gone on for months, as has the election campaign), ease it can be avoided (not very easily, it’s THE news), motives (to demonize and deny basic human rights), number of people offended (everyone not a bigot or a racist), intensity (calls have begun to be more strident, “kill him”), general interest of the community (when reasoned debate is pushed to the side so that cries of “he’s an arab”, “go back to your own country” are heard the loudest, the community as a whole is damaged).

at what point might my rights to speak be affected, tho.  what is a definitive clear and objective test?

side thought
“i may not agree with what they say, but i’ll defend their right to say it!”  those words are constantly stated whenever the most offensive speech is heard.  it rings hollow to me, much in the same way “i’m entitled to my opinion” rings hollow during a discussion: yes, you have a “right” to be a complete moron, but really who wants to be one?  by the same token, some “speech” is so offensive… why on earth would i defend their right to say it?  let them defend it for themselves.  they certainly don’t need my assistance, because i can guarantee that these people would never defend MY “rights”.  in most cases, they are arguing the exact opposite.  they want to limit me and my rights (or the rights of others).  for example, white/black supremacists, nativists, etc:  i am totally opposed to them, their ideals and their wish to limit the rights of others. i find them not only offensive, but harmful to society.  by defending their “right”, there is a tacit approval…in that i am saying they have an opinion worthy of being heard.  while everyone has a “right to an opinion” (in a legal sense), not all opinions are equally valid (in an epistemic sense).  some “opinions” have no worth.  rather than wasting my time defending their “right to speak”, i’d be better served, as would society at large, in trying to see that “truth wins out”.

interesting side notes:

freedom of speech has its origins in islam

the smith act is still on the books, making it illegal to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”

On 10/22/08, Carol said...

Good post arin.. certainly food for thought.  As much as I support freedom of speech, there are certain things which I just cannot support the expression of.

On 10/23/08, arin721 said...

i think as an ideal, we should strive to be as close to absolute freedom of speech as much as possible, but i think i’ve been guilty of what annoys me in other people… an absolute ideology that doesn’t reflect, or take into account, what is occurring / playing out in reality. 

this current election, the immigration debate, real harm is being done to our society as a whole.  the bigotry and racism has just been abominable.

i find it hard to believe that with all the smart, intellectual people we have in this country that we can’t come up with a solution.

Check out arin721's latest entry: ed brayton on rachel maddow show

On 10/23/08, Orc said...

Like any other issue of constraints imposed by the society, freedom of speech can’t be absolute in the widest possible abstract sense, so I don’t really agree with Chomsky or Mill…

A set of rules is established, usually a combination of some common morality and hard codified laws, the latter stemming from the elected representatives, party bureaucratic engine, king & queen, tribal elders, or indeed dictators, like Stalin and Hitler.

It is a matter of historical record that those rules and constraints were usually (but not always) deemed to be too harsh by the intellectual elite of the time - hence the term “free speech” - which I take to mean “more free” not “absolutely free”.

I think that context is crucial when judging on the issue. That dependence seriously undermines position that freedom of speech can be instanced in the real world in its absolute and abstract form.
Take for example this statement: “People X are exploiting and suppressing people Y. People Y are the majority, but most of the wealth and influence is held by the powerful minority, the X people. Decisive steps should be taken to end this unacceptable state!”
Should this kind of speech be allowed in public? Is it something that you would label “hate speech” or is it acceptable because it is a call to end the oppression?
You will find that the answer depends on the context. Historically, you might replace people X and people Y with, say, White and Black people in the South Africa of the apartheid era - it would actually sound good and progressive. However, you could also use Jews and Germans of the Hitler era, and you end up with a horrific hate-inciting pamphlet.
Examples are banal and obvious, but what makes them such is our knowledge of the circumstances… The truth is important. Motivation behind the speech is important. Smart and intellectual people should try to avoid being locked up in neat boxes of abstract thoughts, as those are all too easily exploited by the hatemongers.

On 10/26/08, arin721 said...

orc,

yes, i agree that context / intent / motivation are the key… yet how do you regulate that?  this seems to be the hangup when it comes to hate speech laws.  you want to stop the speech of the 2nd group, not the 1st, in your examples.  we don’t want to create hate speech laws and then find they’re used to silence atheists for saying “god is a delusion”, etc.

and this? “Smart and intellectual people should try to avoid being locked up in neat boxes of abstract thoughts, as those are all too easily exploited by the hatemongers.” is exactly spot on and very well said   which means i plan to steal that from you at some point :o

Check out arin721's latest entry: ed brayton on rachel maddow show

On 10/27/08, Orc said...

arin,

I guess you regulate it like everything else, meaning, sadly, that there is no silver bullet in regulation alone. Government, or its equivalent, that is leaning towards repression will always find the ways to interpret the letter of the law in the most restrictive way possible, and then some.
Sometimes, a more concrete set of laws is adopted, which state that, for example, holocaust denial is a crime. These are meant to limit the range of suppression, so you would be allowed to say “god is a delusion”, but not “holocaust is a delusion”. However, I feel that it all ultimately depends on the overall social climate, for the lack of a better word (in my English vocabulary, anyway). If an extreme right wing party were to come to power in Germany again, it would be all to easy for them to warp the meaning of that law, or simply avoid enforcing it. To simplify, and bring my rambling to a conclusion, one has to work towards changing the society as a whole, influencing the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. It is always hard, often unrewarding and sometimes even dangerous. But there you have it. No formal pattern of how people *should* behave can replace the fact of how people *do* behave.

And, no, you can’t steal the quotation, cause I’m giving it to you for free

On 10/30/08, arin721 said...

orc, but see, then i’m back in the same spot i was before.  i’m not sure that we can work towards changing society as a whole, influencing what is right and wrong, without something akin to a hate speech law in addition to other means.  you can’t stop people from believing stupid things, but you can limit the scope of how many people are exposed to the stupid belief.

perhaps what needs to be done is a cyclical thing, as someone else suggested to me… when hate is at the forefront, limit it.  as that has toned down, fight to remove those limits.

Check out arin721's latest entry: ed brayton on rachel maddow show

On 10/30/08, Orc said...

Of course. It’s an evolutionary process, limits should exist here and there. There are limits to availability of drugs, alcohol and guns. Why not limit the exposure to hate speech?
I’m just saying that there is no constant formula on what is allowed and what’s not, that would span all times and circumstances. It should be carefully weighed at every turn, trying to err on the side of discussing the issue of freedom of speech too much, rather than having blanket bans based on some vague phrases.
And yes, it would probably play out in some sort of a cyclic manner.
To address the issue of 2008 presidential elections.. Playing the racial card, or whatever the latest euphemism for bigotry is, should have been banned. I see no reason why that sad piece of political FUD should be protected as free speech, since no useful information is carried by it. It’s inflammatory and meant to stir up trouble, while offering absolutely no benefit of insight regarding Obama’s ability to lead the country.

Next entry: what i'm listening to, atm

Previous entry: just in time for the elections...