Brian Lamacraft |
Censorship is not the way out of our current problems. In fact, censorship is going to make things worse. There are several reasons why you should not censor anyone.
I have No Control Over Censorship
First of all, I would like to say that I have no control over censorship. I’m not responsible for those that decided to censor. Perhaps those that are censoring other people are trying to hide something themselves. They simply don’t want to see the other side. We’ve seen throughout history what censorship does and where it could lead. I don’t want to see our world go in that direction. It’s increasingly looking like it might go in that direction. Censorship is not the way forward.
Sites Can Censor All they Want
Some of the sites performing censorship are doing so because they don’t want the content on their sites. Since these sites are not run by any government agencies, they are free to censor whatever they feel like censoring.
Continue reading @ Information Clearing House.
I think one must take into account the complexities or interests of the social media/web hosts. If a religious organistaion set up a website to promote its brand of delusion it is perfectly legitimate for it not to publish material promoting opposing beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, take TPQ as an example -if someone was regualrly abusing what few rules there are, or are consistently trying to undermine (beyond reasonable challenging or dabating) the core objectives or principles held by the owner or regualar readers/contributors -can that person not be banned? lest their right to disruptive, abusive or false speech be censored?
In fact some sites/forums can be very strict against the use of bad language or inflamatory bating -and they are not actually targeting the right to free speech even though it might appear that way.
Is it not more accurate to say that for many sites - one is free to make whatever point or argument one wants to make - but how one goes about it is the problem and not the message.
Christy - for TPQ it is a matter of distinguishing between censoring and not permitting material to feature. If an idea is prohibited because of the ideas it expresses TPQ would tend towards seeing that as censorious. It it was declined for being abusive or insulting, then it would not be regarded as censorship. I think any site has to be consistent with its "mission statement". I very much dislike the idea that because TPQ is a free inquiry site that the freedom only lies with the writer and that there is no freedom for the editor.
Deleteas a matter of interest Christy, do you find TPQ too lax in its rules?
DeleteAM
ReplyDeleteNo, I think the balance is well maintained -you sometimes add your own little qualification where you think is necessary without in anyway retracting or altering the expressions being made by an author.
I think the whole current issue of censorship has more to do with Trump's abusive and/or insulting liberty to lie than anything to do with his freedom of speech. Delibrate misinformation has very serious real world consequences -as students/victims of Brit Psyops would you defend Kitson or Colin Wallace's right to publish fake news as freedom of speech?
Christy - we are always looking ways to improve it so appreciate all advice.
DeleteI thought you would have known my response well in advance to the Kitson/Wallace question, given my view that Holocaust denial should not be censored. There are few bigger lies than that, other than perhaps the biblical story of creation. I would not suppress the bible either.
I would definitely allow Kitson- Wallace to publish. Can see no reason not to publish Low Intensity Operations. If you look at say the lies Danny Morrison tells about the hunger strike, I would allow him to continue lying and call him out on it. The concern has to be that truth should be consistently shown to be true otherwise it risks becoming a fixed dogma. A regime of truth can quickly become established in which nothing has to be true just the means to enforce the lies as truth. Once we start censoring lies, we move to defining other things including material we know to be true as lies for the purpose of censoring it. WE actually see much of that happening today with allegations of fascism thrown at people followed by the chant no free speech for fascists.
AM
ReplyDeleteNot what I meant, I wasn't talking ex-post facto writings - would you have censored their lies in real time? For example the fake news put out about the Bloody Sunday victims, or McGurks Bar was a bomb factory and IRA bomb detonated prematurely. It is all well and good postmortem conversations .. but what about the minutes and hours when it counts would you still defend Kitson and Wallace in action so to speak?
Christy - That is a probing question that tests the comfort zone.
ReplyDeleteI would not agree with censoring their lies in real time. Nor is that reasoning premised on defending the right of Kitson / Wallace to speak. I don't believe it should be a government right to lie to its citizens. I have an antipathy towards propaganda as I think it is a smokescreen. But when state officials do lie, I believe society has a right to hear and evaluate accordingly, and journalists have an obligation to convey what is being said accurately rather than act as a filter.
The right I would seek to defend in this matter is not the right to lie but the right of the victims of Bloody Sunday and the McGurks Bar massacre to hear the lies that were being told by the state. How we might deal with the liars is another matter which I will touch on later in the comment.
I do not want their lies nor approve of them. But once they are out of their mouths, I would want their lies out there in real time for the purpose of the record and exposing them. I would want journalists to report on their lies and hold their feet to the fire. But to do that thoroughly the lies have to be out there. I would be less than enthusiastic towards journalists informing me that state officials are lying but refusing to tell me what the lies are.
If Kitson / Wallace were to release a press statement, say, blaming the IRA on the Dublin Monaghan bombing, should it not be reported on and the contents made accessible to the public? I think it very dangerous for freedom of inquiry for it not to be reported on. Journalists should not set themselves up as the arbiter of what the public should hear. I don't see how a society that strives to be open can actually not allow these things out. It is best to let them out and then deal with the matter once out. It is the democratic messiness that helps prevent any trend towards totalitarianism and its claim to the neatness of order.
More often than not lies are found out after real time and not during it. Who shall make the instant call of what are lies or truth in real time? Prisoners putting out statements in real time about prison staff brutality could easily be accused of lying and not have their allegations made public.
I don’t think it is the role of journalism to suppress government lying but to expose it. There is a case from a free inquiry perspective to be made for criminalising lying by government officials. And when they lie there should be a legal sanction. But that is the purview of the legal theatre not journalism.
Too often the emphasis is placed on the freedom to speak rather than the freedom to hear. Citizens should be free to hear what their leaders and state officials are saying.
AM,
ReplyDeleteThat all sounds rational and reasonable and nothing disagreable. If we go back to the article it is talking about social media and websites censoring and not actual news media or journalists.
As a blogger, you can go eitherway -as a site administrator or as a journalist -as a journalist, if it interests you -you could publish something false and flag that fact -but freedom of the press/jpurnalism also means freedom not to publish. As a site admin, just like any Social media sites you have to take into consideration other factors -not just legal obligations, but feasability, resources and time constraints and off course the 'why should I be bothered' consideration.
Christy - I think freedom not to publish has to be laid out in advance for it to work plausibly and to avoid accusations of arbitrary decision making based on the dislike of an idea.
DeleteAs a personal blogger I can carry what I want or not carry it. And no site can carry everything that comes its way, although for the most part we have. But as a blogger who has as a sort of mission statement a commitment to free inquiry, the circumstances where I would not publish should be clearly laid out or at least understood. Every now and then a looper comes along and rants that we are censoring because some rant they made did not feature. We ignore it. It has no merit.
TPQ is a work in progress and has evolved over time in terms of how its handles these matters. It is receptive to suggestions for change and occasionally updates its policy to reflect those changes.
At the same time, these issues are going to be battled over and maybe sorted on sites much more relevant to the discussion than TPQ. It doesn't do for us to take ourselves too seriously. We provide a limited service which a number of people seem to appreciate and it affords a platform to people who might otherwise not get heard. It is not going to change the world.
AM
ReplyDeleteEssentially completely separate issues are being conflated as one about censorship.
In a nutshell only the state can infringe the right to freedom of speech... a news media outlet can deprive you of a right to reply in certain circumstances. Whereas, bloggers and tech companies have absolute discretion to allow anyone to use their services in full or limited access. If they disable anyone's account, for right or wrong reasons, it is at their discretion to allow you back. But they cannot infringe your freedom of speech and it is at their discretion to allow you a right to reply. There could be a circumstance that someone could successfully use them for being unfairly treated but the court is unlikely able to order them to allow the person whatever access they complained about.
Christy - not only the state. A political party, church, trade union - any power structure in civil society rather than in that state can censor those who critique them. The same applies to the media. The media is not some disinterested actor: time out of number studies have called into question the media commitment to objectivity. In the type of societies that we live the press wields considerable power - the term fourth estate was devised to capture a sense of that power - and if they allow one perspective to get out but choose not to let another, thus setting the agenda then they can have a serious detrimental impact on the freedom to speak. Any time I have been refused the right to reply I have regarded it as censorship. I fail to see why I should not. Any institution, within the state or without, that can censor impacts on free speech.
ReplyDelete