Journalists Cheering On Censorship Is A Form Of Hate Speech
from the if-you-have-to-ban-hate-speech dept
We already wrote a little about a French politician's support for the idea that Twitter should help the French government censor speech it doesn't like. I learned about it because of a post by Glenn Greenwald, which is absolutely worth reading. Greenwald's piece, though, focuses much of his anger not towards the French politician, but his colleague at The Guardian, Jason Farago, who wrote a column praising Najat Vallaud-Belkacem and her idea that free speech has somehow gone too far. Farago pulls out the typical arguments against free speech -- slapping the US for "fetishizing" free speech, and then arguing that in this digital age where the riff raff can speak, it shows that the First Amendment goes too far. I'm not joking:If only this were still the 18th century! We can't delude ourselves any longer that free speech is the privilege of pure citizens in some perfect Enlightenment salon, where all sides of an argument are heard and the most noble view will naturally rise to the top. Speech now takes place in a digital mixing chamber, in which the most outrageous messages are instantly amplified, with sometimes violent effects.This is, to put it mildly, both wrong and ridiculous in one shot. First off, it's arguing against a total strawman. No one has ever claimed that free speech leads to a "perfect Enlightenment salon." Quite the opposite. Defenders of free speech argue that you do get a lot of bad speech mixed in with the good -- and that said speech has consequences, sometimes significant. Yet, we recognize that cutting back on that right to free speech is so fraught with problems that it inevitably leads to bad outcomes, in which speech that actually is reasonable gets stifled. Greenwald's response to Farago is an absolute must read, but a few of my favorite quotes:
Nowhere in Farago's pro-censorship argument does he address, or even fleetingly consider, the possibility that the ideas that the state will forcibly suppress will be ideas that he likes, rather than ideas that he dislikes. People who want the state to punish the expression of certain ideas are so convinced of their core goodness, the unchallengeable rightness of their views, that they cannot even conceive that the ideas they like will, at some point, end up on the Prohibited List.Greenwald points out that supporting pro-censorship rules is more of a support for "mob rule" than Farago's conception of the rabble speaking out and lowest common denominator speech having too much power:
That's what always astounds and bothers me most about censorship advocates: their unbelievable hubris. There are all sorts of views I hold that I am absolutely convinced I am right about, and even many that I believe cannot be reasonably challenged.
Ultimately, the only way to determine what is and is not "hate speech" is majority belief - in other words, mob rule. Right now, minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago are happy to criminalize "hate speech" because majorities - at least European ones - happen to agree with their views on gay people and women's equality. But just a couple decades ago, majorities believed exactly the opposite: that it was "hateful" and destructive to say positive things about homosexuality or women's equality. And it's certainly possible that, tomorrow, majorities will again believe this, or believe something equally bad or worse.Greenwald then makes the claim that if we're defining "hate speech" we might want to start with "pro-censorship" arguments as being the ultimate in hate speech:
In other words, it's very possible that at some point in the future, majorities will come to hate rather than like the personal beliefs of minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago. And when that happens, when those majorities go to criminalize the views which minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago hold rather than condemn, they'll have no basis whatsoever for objecting, other than to say: "oh no, it's only fair to criminalize the ideas I hate, not the ones I like."
Personally, I regard the pro-censorship case - the call for the state to put people in cages for expressing prohibited ideas - as quite hateful. I genuinely consider pro-censorship arguments to be its own form of hate speech. In fact, if I were forced to vote on which ideas should go on the Prohibited List of Hateful Thoughts, I would put the desire for state censorship - the desire to imprison one's fellow citizens for expressing ideas one dislikes - at the top of that list.There's a lot more in Greenwald's piece, which is absolutely worth reading. Farago makes a weak response in which he tries to argue that certain forms of speech are not about "ideas" but "violence" (as if violence isn't an idea) and therefore should be banned. For what it's worth, this both over- and under-estimates the power of speech. First it assumes that hateful speech automatically leads to negative actions -- as if hateful speech, by itself, automatically is so convincing that people are moved to action.
Nothing has been more destructive or dangerous throughout history - nothing - than the power of the state to suppress and criminalize opinions it dislikes. I regard calls for suppression of ideas as far more menacing than - and at least just as hateful as - bigoted Twitter hashtags and online homophobic jokes.
Yet, at the same time, it assumes, that contrary speech -- speech that rejects hateful notions and incitement to violence -- is somehow powerless to compete with the hate speech.
This doesn't make sense to me. It seems to put too much weight on hate speech. Yes, you can understand how speech that results in an emotional reaction -- in that you don't like it -- makes you think that everyone reacts emotionally to the comments, and those who agree with it might be galvanized into action -- but that's reading way too much into one's own emotions concerning the power of speech. If the power of simple speech can galvanize people into action, why can't it also calm the storm, educate the ignorant, and convince the world of the wrongness of bad ideas? How can someone believe that only hate speech has power, but speech pushing back against it is powerless?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, journalism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Too Far" - they always say that.
What about the Danish Cartoons? Nope.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh? Nope.
South Park? Nope.
There will never be someone good enough to tell me what I can and cannot read. And there never will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Westboro Baptist Church?
Scientologists?
Creationists (how about in a science classroom if they have repeatable experiments that challenge evolution)?
Don't just list your favorites. You're being just like the article. I am sure there is some speech somewhere you would just LOVE to censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
(A little bit incoherent i know)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Yes, I do.
Do I dislike them enough to tell people that they must silence such ideas permanently under threat of consequences, either lawful or otherwise?
No, I don�t.
When people quote the old saying about not liking what others say but defending their right to say it, they mean situations exactly like this one. I don�t like the messages spread by the groups you mentioned, but I would never dare say that they don�t have the right to either believe them or express them.
People want to hide behind calls for censorship by calling such speech �offensive�. Fine, sure, you feel offended by racism, homophobia, and the like. I understand that.
But you forget one important fact: you don�t have the right to never feel offended.
I watched the recent redband trailer for The Evil Dead and felt disgusted by its content -- but my disgust does not warrant the censorship of content that breaks no laws.
In case you need a tl;dr version of my post: Personal tastes should never act as an arbiter of what ideas or content deserve censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
If there actually is any speech I would like to censor, it would have to be something I inately dissagree with very much that I cannot easily dismiss or refute...
IE: basically the most important sort of speech for me to hear, whether I want to or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
"How much of a right do students have to questioning and independent thinking?"
and my response.
"Silly people. The earth is flat, and all things revolve around it. How could you ever question that?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
nope,
nope
and nope - also, the science classroom issue is a straw man since it has nothing to do with free speech (the First Amendment forbids religious nonsense being taught in science in the same way it forbids alchemy being taught in science, or Flat Earth theories, or witchcraft: religion does not get a free pass to waste teachers' time in science class and neither does anything else so stupid).
And on the contrary, the more I am insulted by speech the less I want to censor it. This goes as far as things even as vile as Holocaust denial. We still benefit from the speech because we end up knowing who our enemies are, where they are located and what their mentalities consist off.
Allowing offensive speech to flow also means we are educated to the evils of the world - hearing about a Holocaust denying scumbag just makes us that more primed to helping to fight much more serious anti-Semitism in other countries that consists of violence and oppression - countries that no doubt have many more censorship laws than the United States.
If there is a spread of hatred occurring within my community, I have a right to know about it. And the government has no right to keep me ignorant of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
�Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof;� (nothing about pseudo-scientific in school)
There are plenty of Catholic schools in the US that teach whatever they want to teach in science class.
Public schools teach �global warming� in science class, which James Lovelock, who is considered the �godfather� of the global warming hysteria admits they (he & Al Gore) had been unduly �alarmist� about climate change.
http://www.thomaspeep.com/al-gore-admits-i-was-wrong-about-climate-change/
The real reason Al Gore is pushing the Global Warming agenda.
�The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.�
��the NY Times� John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install �smart meters� in people�s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.�
�The Times report notes how Gore �has a stake in the world�s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.��
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
I love how people bash religion and creationism and they don't even realize that evolution has never advanced past the theory stage. Evolutionists now use the fact that they can find no missing link to prove evolution. Yes, you read that right, the lack of proof is proof itself. They say that sudden changes in the environment force rapid evolution so there is no record of the change in the fossil record. Belief in something you can't prove is called faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
TFTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Thanks for proving the point that you don't understand how science works, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Science can certainly prove that evolution is true. There are many completely independent lines of evidence supporting it. There's fossil evidence, geographical distribution of species, genetics and others that all point to the same conclusions. There is more direct evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection than for the theory of gravity, yet I don't see you attacking Newton's theory.
There is also evidence against the typical god that is preached from the pulpit and taught in Sunday school class, yet because the term 'god' is rarely defined in specific terms and means different things to different people, I cannot disprove all forms of a 'god' - I can only disprove some.
For example, a god that intercedes in the world based on intercessory prayer for the sick to be healed is a form of god where there have been significantly controlled studies. Those studies have proven that either such a god does not exist, or has chosen not to intercede when someone is attempting to prove it. This is a result where the absence of evidence where it should be present is evidence of absence.
There are some forms of a god that are consistently described that cannot be completely disproven. There is the deist form of a god, in which this god creates the universe and then lets it be for the rest of eternity, never looking into or altering it. While there is some evidence against this, as I previously mentioned the net energy density, it is not conclusively disproven. There is also a god sometimes referred to as a Cartesian demon - one in which actively interferes in every observation to keep itself hidden - and since science is based upon observation, this god cannot be disproven conclusively. Both of those types of god are extremely different from the typical answer you would get if you asked the average person to describe their god. Both also require explanations significantly more complicated than science's current understanding of the universe, so although I cannot conclusively disprove them, I am reasonably confident that they do not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Sorry, but science has never proven it at any level. There are no missing links, it has never been observed and every effort to make it happen has failed. All that is left are only theories. So belief in something you can't prove is faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Scientists are, like, such nerds, they like to write things in books. BOOKS! Theories! Hypothesis! Big words n stuff!
Nothing like a nice big wooden cross to bash their heads in I say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/05/bill-oreilly-claims-explain-oceanic-tides/
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
Yes, that makes your argument and argument from ingnorance, which, while allowed, puts you in a weak position.
However, science class is about science. I do not have a problem with a religion class, or a philosophy class talking about these sorts of points. I do have a problem with a science class discussing it, because there is no science involved. If there was science involved, then there can be a point made, but there is not.
For the record, in science, a theory is scientific hypothosis which is supported by evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
And that's fine, however much I dislike it.
The First Amendment does prevent religion from being taught in public school science classes - since the public schools are run by the government. The same would apply for any type of standards that the government would implement regarding creationism that would apply to private schools.
I don't want any speech or religion censored or suppressed. I want discussion and debates about them. It is much easier to change the minds of people holding irrational beliefs if they are forced to confront them through discussion and open debate.
And I've said it before - but the only way I know to insure that I can say what I want, is to insure that everyone else can also say what they want. The only way to insure that I have the option to not believe in any form of god or gods is to make sure that everyone else has the option to believe or not beleive in whatever god or gods they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
The KKK? - Makes people disgusted by racism.
Westboro Baptist Church? - Makes people question their values and religion.
Scientologists? - Can anyone really take them seriously?
Creationists - Makes people more interested in GOOD science.
In short, crazies make sanity more obvious and fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
But the point is, boy, that even idiots have the right to express their beliefs or opinions.
Otherwise, you would've been censored...long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
You introduced an ad hominem criticism of something that I think AGREES with your viewpoint.
Misinterpretation and misunderstandings are MAIN reasons I disagree with censorship. Sometimes (as with the famous Swift piece "A Modest Proposal") horrendous ideas are actually presented as an argument AGAINST those very ideas. Allowing people to discuss and figure out the sarcasm or metaphor or parody is all part of communicating and it simply can't happen if part of the communication is censored.
(Of course, yes, exposing idiots is another reason we don't want censorship.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Too Far" - they always say that.
They always do and always will say This has Gone to Far so we must Censor you and it is only for your own good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate Speech
LADY: "Well, this is kind of like hate speech."
ME: "No it isn't."
LADY: "It's kind of like saying, 'I hate the Jews.'"
ME: "No, it really isn't."
LADY: "Well...no, it isn't. But kind of?"
Long story short, I went to the site in question and flagged the offending comment then sent the lady a highly snarky email suggesting that she or the offended professor could have just as easily done the same and avoided wasting everyone's time. Now that I have my diploma I still occasionally visit the site and leave scathing reviews about the professor, including details about how she apparently identifies people's anonymous course evaluations and makes baseless accusations of defamation and hate speech.
TL;DR, It's too easy to classify anything you don't like as hate speech to stifle an unpopular opinion, I hate censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Speech
Funny how so many folks abdicate personal responsibility when it suits them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Speech
The decision there was very limited, basically to speech which would temporarily incite panic / anarchy..
Some gov't could as easily say they will throw you in prison, deport you, kill you, whatever if you criticize the gov't and use your argument to say this is not a restriction on free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At times peoples speech pisses me off.
That's OK I would rather be Pissed off than Pissed on.
There can never be to much speech, ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again.. human nature
One curious thought I had is, how does one define the moral barometer in the first place?
Its quite similar to the whole "is porn.. art argument"
I am just sorta vexed as to how one defines "good" in the absence of say the westboro baptist church(no caps for a reason there FYI)
See what I did there? My position is no more accurate than theirs is at the end of the day. Its just the consensus I would hope lol..
I think my point here is that if it involves human nature, its an inherently untenable situation in the first place.
Or perhaps as my grandfather put it, if it ain't broke, don't fuck with it.
And lastly, no I don't believe you can yell fire in a crowded building. If you wittingly endanger others, the free speech bit goes out said window but feel free to correct me on that as IANAL.
Off to go re-read some Nietzsche lol.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First of all; It is so very important that people get to see all sides of an argument. If we disagree, then we respond with a good argument! We can take it. This whole idea, that we, the public, somehow are too fragile and weak to resist aggressive speech or extreme opinions is quite frankly very insulting.
These "leaders" of our countries must take us for complete naive brittle fools who will jump at the chance to do wrong if we are ever exposed to an opinion in that direction.
If they start this, we all know where it ends. Excessive censoring of everything "inappropriate" in the opinion of the majority. What happens when that opinion is that the current biggest religion is the only one that is "right"? Or that the current leader is the best?
We will undo so many years of freedom it is painful to even think about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Careful ... there are some nuts out there that would like to drag society back to the "good 'ol days".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(this is the one where they drilled holes into skulls to let the bad things out)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a nutshell
Like it or not, the people living in the current zeitgeist like to delude themselves that they've reached the pinnacle of enlightenment and thought. That the 'freedoms' they believe in are universally accepted and unchallenged - that their children and their children's children will continue to hold their views.
The reality is that the world is still very full of prejudice, hate and backwards thinking that the children of tomorrow will look back on, shaking their heads...
I've got a feeling that there are a number of things we find perfectly acceptable today - are going to be considered morally repugnant by future generations. Likewise, many things we find morally repugnant now, will become the 'freedoms' that future generations will enjoy and defend as righteous causes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would at this time like to point out at some point in your career someone will be mad that you reported the truth. They will in turn then use your own stupid policies to have you taken down for your hate speech against them.
The circle will then be complete and you will understand why your ignorant view of the "problem" has you sitting in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my point of view Farago simply can't accept different ideas. I consider cannibalism to be atrocious but there were some South American indians that would be outraged if they lost a battle and the other tribe didn't eat them.
And ultimately, the weight most of those moronic moralists like Farago give to what they call hate speech is what give it power and awareness. If it's not harming people anywhere other than their egos then just ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, great quotes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dislike the term "hate speech" as well as "hate crimes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it can, until...
Speech can most definitely do all of that. Until the speaker gets shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My newest printout
I found this so inspiring in this age of internet accelerated virtriol that immediately printed this out to post next to my monitor.
When the fight against darkness seems hopeless, I now have a source for inspiration.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]