I think there's a danger of seeing freedom (in this case, of speech) as some abstract, absolute value, something untouchable. This to me seems to come from voltaire's famous non-statement about disliking what you say whilst defending to the death your right to say it. When racists are allowed the use of mass media platforms to air their views, I see this nonsense often trotted out, in the mistaken belief that this is all to do with the law and rights; as such we conveniently avoid discussing whether the people concerned were right or not to talk in that way.
To take this recent example, I see here that people defending the BNP 's right to airtime are really, in a wider sense, defending those who make unpopular or incorrect use of their rights of expression. These groups are the main beneficiaries of our focusing on the right itself rather than the pros and cons of exercising it - this alone should make us stop and think.
The idea that free speech is the route to truth, that today's heresy may become tomorrow's orthodoxy, is one I find extremely shaky and can't be applied across the board. Does anyone really think that racist hate speech might become 'true'? How exactly does it contribute to the democratic process? if , in order for us to be 'free' it is essential to be able to spout racist slogans and hear hatemongering, then why is that freedom such a desirable end-in-itself?
As for "A robust democracy can and should allow all views to be aired", surely a democracy is more robust when it demonstrates a willingness to protect disadvantaged or minority groups from threatening speech by other (usually dominant, like in this case) groups. And in so doing, acknowledging the unequal power relationships in society instead of clinging to the bogus 'level playing field for all views' argument. Someone's right to free speech may clash with another's right to protection FROM that hate-filled speech. 'Free speech' cannot just trump everything else! isn't it the case that there 's more to life than just rights - what about duties and goals too?
As for such the free expression of race-hate, history is full of examples of how platforms have been abused. I recommend 'Broadcasting genocide: Rwanda 1990-94' which analyses how deep rooted ethnic fears were played upon in the media to justify a carefully planned ethnic slaughter.
Here's a sobering quote I read in a book about the Nazi rise to power: "Instead of working to achieve power by armed conspiracy we shall...enter the reichstag against the catholic and marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own constitution... democracy must be defeated with the weapons of democracy". (A.Hitler, 1923)
Nazi groups have come a long way in their presentation, but that does not mean their ideas are less dangerous. Those who think Nazis, even mdern day ones like Griffin, should be allowed free use of democratic rights to destroy them have not learned from history.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-27 04:55 am (UTC)To take this recent example, I see here that people defending the BNP 's right to airtime are really, in a wider sense, defending those who make unpopular or incorrect use of their rights of expression. These groups are the main beneficiaries of our focusing on the right itself rather than the pros and cons of exercising it - this alone should make us stop and think.
The idea that free speech is the route to truth, that today's heresy may become tomorrow's orthodoxy, is one I find extremely shaky and can't be applied across the board. Does anyone really think that racist hate speech might become 'true'? How exactly does it contribute to the democratic process? if , in order for us to be 'free' it is essential to be able to spout racist slogans and hear hatemongering, then why is that freedom such a desirable end-in-itself?
As for "A robust democracy can and should allow all views to be aired", surely a democracy is more robust when it demonstrates a willingness to protect disadvantaged or minority groups from threatening speech by other (usually dominant, like in this case) groups. And in so doing, acknowledging the unequal power relationships in society instead of clinging to the bogus 'level playing field for all views' argument. Someone's right to free speech may clash with another's right to protection FROM that hate-filled speech. 'Free speech' cannot just trump everything else! isn't it the case that there 's more to life than just rights - what about duties and goals too?
As for such the free expression of race-hate, history is full of examples of how platforms have been abused. I recommend 'Broadcasting genocide: Rwanda 1990-94' which analyses how deep rooted ethnic fears were played upon in the media to justify a carefully planned ethnic slaughter.
Here's a sobering quote I read in a book about the Nazi rise to power:
"Instead of working to achieve power by armed conspiracy we shall...enter the reichstag against the catholic and marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own constitution... democracy must be defeated with the weapons of democracy". (A.Hitler, 1923)
Nazi groups have come a long way in their presentation, but that does not mean their ideas are less dangerous. Those who think Nazis, even mdern day ones like Griffin, should be allowed free use of democratic rights to destroy them have not learned from history.