ALS Topic
22 -
How free should free speech be?
Focus questions for Adelaide Lunchtime
Seminar, 24 November 2018 Venue: · Adelaide
(https://www.meetup.com/AdelaideLunchtimeSeminar/ )
Note:
About Focus Questions: a) Please read them before you come to the
meetup. Think about them so you have more than "instant opinions" to
offer. b) Feel free to add more focus questions. c) THE FOCUS
QUESTIONS ARE JUST A MENU TO CHOOSE FROM. From this menu we can
discuss whatever seems interesting. d) Focus questions are not
intended to push one viewpoint! You can adopt any position you wish.
We actually like friendly disagreement - it can lead to deeper
understanding.
Focus Questions
1.
What does 'freedom of speech' actually mean?
2. Should
freedom of speech (whatever it is) apply equally to everyone in all
situations?
3. What role should laws and governments have in
controlling what we are allowed to say? For example, what of these
mixed messages in Europe? - The Economist (31 October 2018) "Voters
in Ireland [just] chose to get rid of their constitution’s
requirement for a legal ban on blasphemy. That popular decision in
defence of freedom of expression contrasted with one taken a couple
of days earlier by the judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
They upheld the conviction of an Austrian woman who had been fined
for saying that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old
would today be regarded as child molestation."
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2018/10/29/blasphemy-bans-are-struck-out-in-ireland-and-reinforced-in-austria
4. The path from private conversation to posting on social
media, then to national media coverage can be almost instantaneous
quite often now. This is very different to even a decade ago, when
it was safe to 'let off steam' privately while showing restraint in
public for the sake of harmony. The law has not found a solution to
this new confusion of forums. How seriously has this situation
undermined our personal freedom to speak freely?
5. One
reason that people sometimes give for coming to live in a country
like Australia is that they feel free here to say what they think
without any serious risk of persecution or even violence. So really,
how well does Australia compare with other societies on this
question?
6. One big problem with documents of permission,
like the American Constitution, or religious tracts (the Bible, the
Q'ran etc) is that everyone, including authority figures, gives the
written words meanings of social or political convenience. There
have been wars and murders over this sort of thing. A word like
'freedom' in these documents can actually lead to oppression
sometimes. So how useful is it to make formal legal rules about
something like 'freedom of speech'?
7. Laws of slander, libel
and defamation are intended to put some formal control on public
statements which will cause a loss of reputation, employment,
financial well-being and so on. How effective have such laws been?
Can you think of examples where they have been used or misused?
[note: in Australia, defamation is a private legal action. Thus it
carries financial but not criminal risk. In some countries, such as
South Korea, defamation is a criminal charge, brought by the Public
Prosecutor. These legal differences can lead to very different
outcomes].
8. We often hear now about 'the culture wars'. A
large part of these so-called culture wars is often more to do with
what people say than what they do (although words can lead to
actions). Whether is it feminism or sexism or racism or ageism or
religion or what political elites are doing ... and so on, the
loudest arguments can be about what we are allowed to say, or what
it is safe to say, in public. How much of this kind of conflict
comes from rapid social change, how much from a real clash of
cultures, how much from a sense of entitlement among people no
longer facing a daily struggle for mere survival?
9. There
are many, many countries where a public meetup like our Lunchtime
Seminar, discussing controversial issues, would be forbidden. If
allowed, it could pose a personal risk to those who took part. In
the very least it would be infiltrated by government agents, and a
record would be kept by those agents of who said what. So even in
Australia, how many people do you think avoid discussion groups like
this out of some private fear that it might cause them problems in
the future?
10. Many, maybe most, people in employment
self-censor what they say in the workplace, and even what they say
outside of the workplace. How much of this censorship and secrecy is
formally required, and how much of it is manipulation for personal
advantage?
11. 'Security' is a much misused word. One of its
main uses has been to stop people speaking in public about mistakes
and malpractice in institutions. Norway has some of the strongest
anti-secrecy rules anywhere. In Norway almost everything which
happens in government administration is not allowed to be secret.
How could we bring about such practice in Australia, and would it be
a good idea?
-----------------------------
Comments & Extra Reading
Thor May (2015) "Media Distraction and
Social Control - Is the “white noise” of daily media distraction
deliberate social control, or just modernity out of control?
Everyone has only 24 hours in a day. In many communities worldwide
the sheer struggle to survive occupies most waking hours. In some
others, any “free thinking time”, especially for the young, is
carefully manipulated by state directed activities, propaganda and
censorship. A possible third model is that ruling elites and
governments may prevent criticism by distracting the main population
with sports, entertainment and endless trivial ‘news’." Academia.edu
@
https://www.academia.edu/10192716/Media_Distraction_and_Social_Control
Thor May (2014) "When is censorship acceptable? Justify your
argument - When is censorship acceptable? Justify your argument
- Forty years ago the biggest social debates were about the
acceptability (or not) of censorship related to sexuality. Now the
preoccupation might be more with political censorship. There are
many kinds of censorship, including self-censorship. Who should be
drawing these invisible lines in the sand, and applied to what?"
Academia.edu @
https://www.academia.edu/23078203/When_is_censorship_acceptable_
Justify_your_argument
Thor May (2001) "Student
Activism : Truth and False Prophets - Alas, accumulated experience
and a wider reading of history, has made me increasingly skeptical
of the proposition that students are typically in the vanguard of
anything but their own fashion statements. Sometimes they are on the
side of the angels, but just as often they are dupes. All too
frequently in the real world, students argue for intolerance,
persecution and reaction as "a means to an end". Their argument is
always one of building a "better" world. They have yet to learn that
the journey is usually more important than the destination. For all
their intelligence, experience has not yet taught them the
complexity of human motives, nor the persistence of human
perversions. It is no accident that today's student leaders are
usually tomorrow's oligarchs, factional politicians, and
bureaucratic opportunists. The grimmest example of student deviance
in all of history is surely Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution ..."
The Passionate Skeptic website @
http://thormay.net/unwiseideas/student.html
The
Economist (10 October 2018) "Be careful what you say - On Friday
voters in Ireland chose to get rid of their constitution’s
requirement for a legal ban on blasphemy. That popular decision in
defence of freedom of expression contrasted with one taken a couple
of days earlier by the judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
They upheld the conviction of an Austrian woman who had been fined
for saying that the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old
would today be regarded as child molestation". The Economist @
https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2018/10/29/blasphemy-bans-are-struck-out-in-ireland-and-reinforced-in-austria
Faisal Al Yafai November 6, 2018 "Backlash over Syrian
refugee’s story is about who has the right to speak - The moment it
was announced that a young, white American woman was going to write
a script for the true story of a young Syrian refugee, the backlash
began..." Asia Times @
http://www.atimes.com/backlash-over-syrian-refugees-story-is-about-who-has-the-right-to-speak/
James Massola & Karuni Rompies (6 November 2018) "Social
media giant Twitter suspended 1,210,357 accounts for promoting
terrorism between August 2015 and the end of 2017". Brisbane Times @
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/asia/twitter-suspends-1-2-million-accounts-for-terrorism-in-two-years-20181106-p50eeb.html
David Devoss July (4, 2018) "US anger and divisiveness
blamed on ‘Truth Decay’ -Governing is impossible when opinion and
anecdote obscure fact and analysis. Punditry and opinion-based news
have replaced hard-news journalism" - Asia Times @
http://www.atimes.com/article/us-anger-and-divisiveness-blamed-on-truth-decay/
Andrei Soldatov (Feb. 05 2018) "For more than five years,
the Kremlin has tried to find a way to bring the internet in Russia
under its control. Now under mounting pressure to bring online
activity to heel ahead of (Russian) presidential elections in March,
the authorities have developed a distinctive strategy that sets the
country apart from China or Iran. The approach rests on two pillars.
The first is the use of intimidation: The Kremlin has always been
behind the curve in terms of its tech, but it has never lacked the
resources for selective repression. Second, rather than targeting
individual users, it is going after tech and internet companies.
They are easiest to scare because they have the most to lose. The
most scandalous legislation of 2017, banning VPN services which
facilitate anonymous browsing, confirmed this strategy. The bill
involves internet service providers in the enforcement system by
requiring providers to check the state censor Roskomnadzor’s
blacklist of uncooperative VPNs on a daily basis and take immediate
action. As always, the results have been mixed. Although
Roskomnadzor reported that some VPN services have complied with the
law, the most popular VPN services have openly defied the
legislation". Moscow Times @
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/the-kremlins-ticking-tech-bomb-op-ed-60397
Mariano Sigman (2018) "How can groups make good decisions?"
TED talk @
https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_and_dan_ariely_how_can
_groups_make_good_decisions#t-503742 [Thor: Really
interesting. The big challenge is to find a way for the wisdom of
small groups to be translated into an online mechanism for the large
scale governance of millions. Anonymous avatars would kill it stone
dead - you wind up with extreme trolls. Then getting a balance of
the population to participate is another tough one. Voluntary
participants tend to be over-committed to some issue. We sure don't
have real 'participatory democracy' the way things are working now].
Will Creeley (August 1, 2016) "Censored on Campus? FIRE Will
Defend You - A pair of articles published online by The New York
Times today—titled “Fighting for the First Amendment on America’s
Campuses” and “Want a Copy of the Constitution? Now, That’s
Controversial!”—reviews FIRE’s work defending free speech for
students and faculty members nationwide..." The Fire Organization @
https://www.thefire.org/censored-on-campus-fire-will-defend-you/
Nate Kornell (Mar 5, 2016) "When should a college uninvite a
speaker?" Medium website @
https://medium.com/@natekornell/when-should-a-college-uninvite-a-speaker-29156e8c1425
Aaron R. Hanlon (April 24, 2017) "Why Colleges Have a Right
to Reject Hateful Speakers Like Ann Coulter - Disinviting right-wing
provocateurs isn't a suppression of free speech. It's a value
judgment in keeping with higher education's mission." The New
Republic @
https://newrepublic.com/article/142218/colleges-right-reject-hateful-speakers-like-ann-coulter
Matthew Humphries (2 August 2018) "Report: Google Is Also
Censoring a News App for China - Yesterday, we heard about Dragonfly
for the first time. It's Google's censored search service for China,
but it isn't the only thing Google is censoring. There's a news app
in the works, too". PC Magazine @
https://au.pcmag.com/news/57892/report-google-is-also-censoring-a-news-app-for-china
Zach Reed (30 May 2018) "Oxford Union panel speaker Heather
Marsh confirms debate was censored to protect CIA" World Socialist
Website @https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/30/oxfo-m30.html
United States Government "Whistleblower Protection Programs"
@
https://www.whistleblowers.gov
Gilbert King
(September 26, 2012) "The Silence that Preceded China’s Great Leap
into Famine - Mao Zedong encouraged critics of his government—and
then betrayed them just when their advice might have prevented a
calamity" Smithsonian @
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-silence-that-preceded-chinas-great-leap-into-famine-51898077/#hwGClxrkCRdMh0Iz.99
[Comment by Thor: as a management stratagem, I have repeatedly seen
'let 100 flowers bloom' type of betrayal practiced in institutions,
and the long term consequences are always dire]
Wikipedia
(2018) "Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under
article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
recognized in international human rights law in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the
UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions
without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom
of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in
the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these
rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may
"therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or
respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the
protection of national security or of public order (order public),
or of public health or morals". Wikipedia @
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Information warfare and the exploitation of 'free speech': Chris
Zappone (13 October 2018) "'Regime change without a war': we need to
get smarter about fake news" Brisbane Times @
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/north-america/regime-change-without-a-war-we-need-to-get-smarter-about-fake-news-20181010-p508qk.html
. [comment by Thor: The business model of
military-industrial-political complexes, and overwhelmingly the one
centred on Washington, has heavily leaned for at least two
generations on the propagation of fake news. Fake news underpins the
public opinion that guarantees their budgets. So now the Russians,
Big Pharma, and everyone else is offering competition in that space.
They are hugely aided by the electronic tsunamis which sites like
Twitter generate. Especially Twitter, since the largest part of
every population is not functionally literate enough to take in more
than a written sentence or two. Ask Donald Trump about that. Getting
people motivated and analytic enough to navigate all this stuff may
be the biggest challenge our civilizations face. Conventional
'education' systems do not cut it right now at this critical level,
and it is hard to see how they can be made to.]
ian beutler
=> it ws all worked out ab. 3 thous. yrs ago, Thor. the only real
freedom is total self-responsibility.. to put it bluntly. &most
won't get it. as 4 free speech, i have a wife that treats me as the
village idiot. she's a good barometer for me. & it is as Socrates
said...
=> Thor May - Agreed, but now computer (ro)bots want
free speech too, and they've got us outnumbered..
Thor May =>
Does 'free speech' include the right to spread free propaganda? A
large part of America's soft power outside of the United States has
come from Hollywood myth-making. The reality of daily life for
ordinary working Americans has been much more grim. The power of the
Hollywood mythical world has been its dream appeal for those who
don't have the dream. The Chinese government has tried to hitch its
star to this American vehicle: "How China controls Hollywood
scripts" by Amy Qin and Audrey Carlsen (19 November 2018), Brisbane
Times @
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/asia/how-china-controls-hollywood-scripts-20181119-p50guw.html
[comment by Thor: If someone offers you a bargain that is too good
to be true, then you can guess strongly that he's a liar. If someone
presents an image of themselves to the world that is too good to be
true, then you can guess strongly that he's a liar. If a country
presents an image of itself to the world that is too good to be
true, then you can guess strongly that it's a lie. So what is 'too
good to be true'? That depends upon your life experience. The life
experience of Trump supporters seems to have been that Obama was too
good to be true, and that Trump is reassuringly imperfect just like
themselves. My life experience has been that the angelic image of Xi
Jinping presented to the world by Chinese media. and the fairy tale
story of China presented to the world by Chinese media are both too
good to be true. Therefore I am moved to judge these media
manipulators as liars and the image as rather stupid, ineffective
propaganda. That's a pity for China's sake. China is by no means
alone in making that kind of mistake. Hollywood lives on this
stuff.]
=> ian beutler - metaphysical probl with "free" is it
means we get what we deserve... including ... B.S... which is also
"free" ... cf. "karma"
=> Madhu - Yep - Take what you what
and pay for it (in this context, say what you want). Every idea put
out in the world has had detractors and supporters. The individual
numbers of detractors and supporters are not an indication of the
idea being right/fair. It just 'is' and changes as the society
changes through the ages, and not always for the better.
=>
Thor May - What you or I say is unlikely to change the world much,
for better or for worse. Our free speech comes cheap. When you are
in a position to manipulate what 2 billion people see & hear, like
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, then your own tendencies can be very,
very critical to setting a neutral environment (or not) where others
can promote their views. This article suggests that Zuckerberg has
been anything but neutral, and is out of his depth, which is a risk
for everyone: Margaret Sullivan (20 November 2018) "Mark Zuckerberg
should - at least - step down as Facebook chairman" Brisbane Times @
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/north-america/mark-zuckerberg-should-at-least-step-down-as-facebook-chairman-20181120-p50h1r.html
=> Madhu - The article makes interesting reading. Free
speech is always acceptable if you like or at least can tolerate
what others say and it doesn't cause you any harm. That I think is a
part of the discussion - Do or should effects count towards freeness
of 'free' speech? Another point in the article's context is that
Zuckerberg is an empire builder, and a large part of empire building
is propaganda and image. I like this analysis of knowledge
production (somewhat off topic)
https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cm/vol12/iss2/5/
=> Thor May - A pity we can only work from the abstract on that
link Madhu. But yes, Alexander the Great didn't do bad for someone
who was dead by about 32. However, pragmatically there is a
qualitative change which comes from a modern quantitative change.
I've read that in pre-modern China the literacy level was only about
2%. That tiny minority "made" the history and mythology to be passed
on by word of mouth as "knowledge". Now over a million books are
published annually, and 24/7 billions of people shape and are shaped
by the media torrent. That might pose a somewhat different free
speech problem than the traditional one.
=> Madhu - Hi Thor,
Sorry. The download link on top right of the document gives full
access to the document. If interested, this is the document link:
https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=cm
It is a somewhat an effort - about 50 pages long - but is well
researched (to me - a complete non-expert in the area) and well
written. I do agree with minority historians who essentially wrote
history, acting as 'true eyewitnesses' and official chroniclers -
Monks in the west, priests in the east. Makes one think how old is
the true PR business.
Thor's
own websites:
1. articles at
http://independent.academia.edu/ThorMay
;
2.
legacy site: http://thormay.net
.
|