The Limits of Free Speech

I wish the original impulse behind what a crusty old Spectator reader would call PC (which was really making sure you were able in speech to treat diverse people equally in principle) had not been obscured by neo-paternalistic Thought Police of every possible gender. Mark isn't one of these, and he's no censor. Real censors, after all, are so secure in their oppressive powers that they can ignore dissenters, or persecute them like the Falun Gong.

As for the crowded theatre, I'd say it's the job of the fire inspectors to make enough exits that people can escape whatever bloody nonsense people are shouting. That's what theatres are for, shouting nonsense.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

'Art is where you can crash the plane and walk away.' (Eno)

Ditto computers and simulations and representations of all kinds. As Kerry said, if someone means to do you physical harm, censoring the threats isn't going to help you much.

But soon even those people realised that they were policing language and limiting its greatest strength: the capacity for modelling other ways of being, for envisioning the world differently. So PC receded, and now we have the more healthy anti-global protests instead. Real political action, back in the realm of political action where it belongs. And language went back to being the free zone it wants and needs to be.

ILM started as the discussion board for my Freaky Trigger webzine. If FT has any guiding principle at all, it's the idea that the music listeners experiences as listener *and consumer* are as important as the music being discussed. In other words, you can't shove commerce sniffily off to one side. This isn't the internet of 1995 any more, and more to the point the internet of 1995 wasn't all that good. As I said just now on ILM, we have a category, called "Hype", for these kinds of posts.

I would broadly say that it is OK for regular posters to fill other regular posters in on what they are doing - the definition of 'regular' on ILM should be at the posters discretion. Kate's tour dates fall into the same bracket as DJ Martian's weblog, for me. If you want to post your tour dates, Momus, or Alasdair M or Dave Q or anyone else does, that's fine by me.

Jesus, Nick, I can't believe you're being quite so juvenile about this! If I didn't have some respect and admiration for your actions outside of this thread, I'd suspect you were only doing this for attention.

Look: what's bothering me here is that your level of dogmatism here is approaching that of a twelve year old's, and it's showing in your poor rhetorical choices -- responding to my intentional cliche with "but that's such a cliche" and spouting nonsense about theaters having enough exits to accommodate any level of stupidity. All I want you to admit is this: in private spaces, it is reasonable for the "owner" to set some limits on people's behaviour. This is what allows you to make records without having to let me write arrangements for them; this is what allows me to watch television without having to let you drop by and comment on everything; and this, I'm arguing, is what allows a person to organize a web-based forum in which there are certain ground rules concerning people's contributions.

I only ask that you admit this. You're free to argue that in this instance, censorship was unnecessary; you're free to argue that this forum as whole doesn't need moderation of any sort -- in both instanced, I might be tempted to agree with you. But your evasion and your refusal to admit this basic point -- which is already codified in international law -- is currently striking me as positively infantile.

I re-iterate what Milton said about freedom of the press, back when Cromwell was trying to get all books and plays approved by the government: vitue which is untested by exposure to malice, sedition and simply *other ways of thinking about the problem* is no virtue at all.

Serge Gainsbourg: 'Provoke, always provoke. But remember, stay human.'

I'm going to go listen to Ping Pong and remind myself why I generally like this person.

Yes, PC started in academia and the media and kept the denizens of those zones busy bickering while the politicians and corporations carried on business as usual with their same-old New World Order. And of course people were bound to realise mere lip service was being paid to the notion of equality. But I see the anti-globalism impulse as an evolution of these ideas, not a repudiation of same.

Anyway, this thread is rather Miltonesque: testing the virtues of a virtual Paradise could hardly be called anything else.

("Retarded" in the kindly American sense, of course...)

One of the fondest memories of my life in regulated group situations was in my co-op. We go by roberts rules and thus can "move the question" at which point a vote is taken on if we are to end the discussion and vote on the motion. Think fillibusters and how to beat them in Congress. Anyway, some hippie assholes decide this is "undemocratic" and bring up a motion against this procedure. We move the question. The next week, the same thing happens. My point, as it relates to this discussion? Fuck hippies.

Also, lynching was not about speech but organized and institutionalized racial terror and oppression for the purpose of maintaining a particular political economy with black ppl. on the bottom. Also, Momus should take a good look at who Falun Gong are before he starts praising them. Irony time: momus cries fascist at innocent moderation and the FG are racial purists. Who also encouraged a twelve year old girl to self immolate.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2j5flSKw_GNYeM:http://images.newsfrombabylon.com/articles/09-2005/09-24-2005/104_0421.JPG

What a retarded thread. and what, why the revive?

You see where moderation transparency gets you?

It doesn't read like mark s's usual style of writing.

Interesting

sfgate seems like a good place for that news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/12/ban-pastor-jones-extremists-violence

"What about principle. The right to free speech." We have laws that protect our right to free speech. We also have laws that prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred. Occasionally, a difficult balance has to be struck.

the takeaway: "It's a no-brainer."

"let's have a heated debate"

And I wonder where this debate would be if it was a Muslim cleric planning to come to the UK and start burning Bibles.

actually this might be the hilarious takeaway. yes, what if there were preachers in britain inciting racial and religious hatred, what a crazy parallel world that would be.

Greenwald on the DOJ prosecuting unpopular speech:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/04/speech/index.html

David Frum's "b-b-b-but Lincoln did it" response on twitter is pathetic.

Greenwald has the full weight of the US Constitution and unanimous Supreme Court rulings on his side. On the opposing side there is nothing but fear or subservience to power. Not hard to choose between these two, imo.

greenwald accusing lincoln of 'extremism and lawlessness' on twitter hardly less ridiculous, and hurts his argument. though this was one of the better greenwald posts in a while.

but it was lawless, Blanche.

That riposte was weak even for Frum.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/09/the_vile_anti_muslim_video_and_the_first_amendment_does_the_u_s_overvalue_free_speech_.2.html

Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law.

don't be evil lol

I forget which thread in the last 10 days boasted an argument between a britishes and American concerning "hate speech."

http://www.voanews.com/content/Indonesia-blasphemy-protocol/1514420.html?utm_content=wall-post&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=voice-of-america&utm_medium=facebook

I heard somebody on NPR the other day saying their should be a UN convention on blasphemy. Not sure exactly what he meant, but apparently it is a thing:

http://www.iheu.org/belief-groups-unite-oppose-un-blasphemy-law

Maybe it was this guy: Jeremy Bowen, Middle East editor for the BBC and author of "The Arab Uprisings".

In the wake of the violence sparked by the now infamous video insulting Islam, Bowen thinks an international convention on blasphemy would be an excellent use of the United Nations. But, as he points out, the U.N. has struggled for years to come to an agreement on how to define "terrorism," so such an amorphous term as blasphemy would presumably pose an even greater struggle.

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2012/sep/24/united-nations-considers-middle-east-unrest

I forget which thread in the last 10 days boasted an argument between a britishes and American concerning "hate speech."

― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:00 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

these are always great

outlawing blasphemy is absurd. every religion is blasphemous to another religion.

it was towards the end of this thread: 7 years of prison for pussy riot?

that was me and that was a month ago

i used a variation of "racial hatred all gone yet?" on a friend recently, so thanks

I saw this transition in yesterday's NYT story on Obama's UN speech:

The president worked to explain — before a sometimes skeptical audience that has never completely bought into the American idea that even hateful speech is protected — why the United States values its First Amendment so highly.

god your newspapers suck