Last week Facebook removed Richard Spencer's pages. The BBC reports that his personal page was removed, as were the pages for the National Policy Institute, an organization that favors a white ethnostate, and Altright.com, his online magazine. All of these are now gone from Facebook, probably as a result of Mark Zuckerberg's appearance before 2 Congressional committees.
Let me be perfectly clear. I don't agree with Mr. Spencer. His white supremacist views offend me. It's also true that his Twitter and YouTube accounts are still there, and both the National Policy Institute and Altright.com have active web sites. He has plenty of access to free speech. But he no longer has access to Facebook. For some reason this bothers me.
I've posted before that if Nazis don't have free speech, I don't have free speech. I think Mr. Spencer qualifies as a Nazi, at least in his racist views. I suspect he was evicted from Facebook because of the bad publicity over the 2016 election, not to mention the riot in Charlottesville. But when offensive speech is censored, it raises the question: who decides what is offensive speech? Also, who decides what platforms are and should be available for public speech?
Removing these pages from Facebook reduces the size of his audience to the people who know how to find his platforms elsewhere; and there seem to be a lot of people these days who never leave Facebook. This is a form of censorship. Is that a good thing?
It's a hard question and I don't have an answer. But I'm not sure I trust Mark Zuckerberg, if he was the one who made the decision, to be the guardian of free speech.
Showing posts with label Free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free speech. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Free speech??
I've written on this before, and I just updated several posts with the tag Free speech to make them easier to find. And after Charlottesville, and the mess in Berkeley on Sunday August 27, maybe it's time to restate my views.
If Nazis don't have freedom of speech, I don't have freedom of speech.
Full disclosure: I don't like Nazis. I'm a history buff; I've read numerous books on World War II, including twice through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I have a very clear view of who the Nazis were and what they did to people they considered "inferior" - which included everyone except white men of "Aryan" (which meant German) descent. They considered women inferior beings suited only to produce more Aryan male babies. I shouldn't even have to mention what they did to Jews - and yes, the holocaust actually happened. There may even be a few American World War II vets still alive who remember liberating those concentration camps.
I've seen no evidence that the people who call themselves Nazis today, in 2017, are any better than the ones in Germany in the '30s and '40s. They claim to want a "whites only" nation. They show up armed at public rallies and beat up people who disagree with them. One of them used a car to kill an unarmed woman in Charlottesville, and injured 19 more unarmed people.
If Nazis don't have freedom of speech, I don't have freedom of speech.
Full disclosure: I don't like Nazis. I'm a history buff; I've read numerous books on World War II, including twice through The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I have a very clear view of who the Nazis were and what they did to people they considered "inferior" - which included everyone except white men of "Aryan" (which meant German) descent. They considered women inferior beings suited only to produce more Aryan male babies. I shouldn't even have to mention what they did to Jews - and yes, the holocaust actually happened. There may even be a few American World War II vets still alive who remember liberating those concentration camps.
I've seen no evidence that the people who call themselves Nazis today, in 2017, are any better than the ones in Germany in the '30s and '40s. They claim to want a "whites only" nation. They show up armed at public rallies and beat up people who disagree with them. One of them used a car to kill an unarmed woman in Charlottesville, and injured 19 more unarmed people.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
No More Free Speech at Berkeley
I've been following the current flap about the Increase Diversity Bake Sale, put on today at U.C. Berkeley by the campus Republican students' group.
U.C. Berkeley students, I'm ashamed of you. And I don't mean the Republicans, who are exercising their constitutional right to be publicly offensive in order to make a point. To paraphrase Voltaire slightly, I don't agree with their point, but I will defend to the death their right to make it. In fact, if their purpose in this was to stir up debate, I'd say they've succeeded brilliantly.
Michael Krasny's Forum gave the brouhaha half an hour this morning, during which the earnest Vishali Loomba, president of the ASUC (for you non-Berkeley folks, that's the student union), complained that the bake sale was "rude," it "dissed people" and made them uncomfortable. Well, yes. Welcome to U.S. political discourse, Ms. Loomba - that's what free speech is supposed to do. For the record, after listening to Ms. Loomba speak, she was either born here or has lived here most of her life; for those of you who don't understand satire, that remark was intended to be satirical.
For a somewhat earlier example of satirical free speech which made some people very uncomfortable indeed, I recommend Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, published in 1729. (For the record, I wrote my honors thesis for my B.A. on Jonathan Swift.)
I attended U.C. Berkeley during the original Free Speech Movement. I remember people standing on top of police cars with microphones, and sitting in at Sproul Hall. And the students all thought that was fine because they agreed with the protestors. Your lesson for today, U.C. students: free speech is meaningless if it is only available to the people you agree with. I remember some time ago when an Israeli official was booed off the stage at U.C. Berkeley by Palestinian supporters. I was more appalled then than I am now; but I hereby state that this is it: as far as I'm concerned, U.C. Berkeley has forfeited the right to call itself "the home of free speech."
And I have another bone to pick. With all the emoting about the "discount pricing" for buyers of color, none of the complainers, not even Ms. Loomba (at least until I became so annoyed I turned Forum off), has even mentioned the 25 cent discount for all women! Apparently it's OK to insult women as long as you don't insult them for their skin color. As a feminist, now I'm really appalled!
U.C. Berkeley students, I'm ashamed of you. And I don't mean the Republicans, who are exercising their constitutional right to be publicly offensive in order to make a point. To paraphrase Voltaire slightly, I don't agree with their point, but I will defend to the death their right to make it. In fact, if their purpose in this was to stir up debate, I'd say they've succeeded brilliantly.
Michael Krasny's Forum gave the brouhaha half an hour this morning, during which the earnest Vishali Loomba, president of the ASUC (for you non-Berkeley folks, that's the student union), complained that the bake sale was "rude," it "dissed people" and made them uncomfortable. Well, yes. Welcome to U.S. political discourse, Ms. Loomba - that's what free speech is supposed to do. For the record, after listening to Ms. Loomba speak, she was either born here or has lived here most of her life; for those of you who don't understand satire, that remark was intended to be satirical.
For a somewhat earlier example of satirical free speech which made some people very uncomfortable indeed, I recommend Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, published in 1729. (For the record, I wrote my honors thesis for my B.A. on Jonathan Swift.)
I attended U.C. Berkeley during the original Free Speech Movement. I remember people standing on top of police cars with microphones, and sitting in at Sproul Hall. And the students all thought that was fine because they agreed with the protestors. Your lesson for today, U.C. students: free speech is meaningless if it is only available to the people you agree with. I remember some time ago when an Israeli official was booed off the stage at U.C. Berkeley by Palestinian supporters. I was more appalled then than I am now; but I hereby state that this is it: as far as I'm concerned, U.C. Berkeley has forfeited the right to call itself "the home of free speech."
And I have another bone to pick. With all the emoting about the "discount pricing" for buyers of color, none of the complainers, not even Ms. Loomba (at least until I became so annoyed I turned Forum off), has even mentioned the 25 cent discount for all women! Apparently it's OK to insult women as long as you don't insult them for their skin color. As a feminist, now I'm really appalled!
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Price of Freedom
I've been thinking a lot about the Arizona shooting on Saturday. My thoughts are with Rep. Giffords, but I'm betting Arizona will need to elect a new representative for her district. Nobody recovers from a bullet through the brain in a hurry.
I admit, my first response to the news was to wonder if someone would indict Sarah Palin for inciting to violence, if not for conspiracy to commit murder, because of her notorious web site with the gunsights on Democrats she wanted to remove. I've been following the story closely in the media (and I don't mean Fox News), and I've concluded that, probably, Sarah Palin and her web site weren't involved in this at all. The young man who did this wasn't listening to the Tea Party or Glen Beck; he was listening to the voices in his head. If you put Sarah Palin on a platform in front of him, he might take a shot at her too.
Is the violent rhetoric used by Palin, by the Fox News commentators, and by a lot of people on the right, excusable? No, I don't think it is. The left was using this rhetoric in the Sixties - remember "kill the pigs!" - and it was wrong then, and it still is. You may not actually mean the violent things you say as metaphor, but you never know who is listening to you, or what they may do with your suggestions. In that sense, Keith Olbermann was right yesterday when he said we must all stop using metaphors of violence, even though I don't believe in this case that political metaphors of violence were involved at all.
No, yesterday's attack, and all the violent rhetoric we hear around us, are the price of our freedom.
Our constitution says that we have freedom of speech, which means that if we want to publish a photo of our opponent with a gunsight imposed over it, that's our right as Americans. The fact that we have the right to do something doesn't make it "right" in the sense of just, correct, or even sensible.
Our constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms, which means that if a troubled young man decides to buy an automatic pistol, he has every right to do so, and what he does with it is up to him.
Another amendment (I can't recall which) is normally used today to say that we cannot force mentally ill people into treatment. This young man clearly needed treatment; he was kicked out of the local community college unless he were to come back with a clearance from a mental health professional. The combination of this attitude with the free access to firearms allowed a deeply disturbed young man to buy a gun and kill six people.
I spent 19 years as a computer system programmer, in charge of maintaining IBM mainframe and Sun Solaris servers. The first thing you learn as a system programmer is that you have absolute authority to do everything on the box - it's called the "God ID" - and this authority is dangerous. You have to think about what you're doing. You have to consider consequences. Freedom is dangerous. Americans have many freedoms. We are, in fact, free to do a number of things that are totally stupid. We have to start thinking about what we do and say. We could start by trying to disagree with each other civilly.
I admit, my first response to the news was to wonder if someone would indict Sarah Palin for inciting to violence, if not for conspiracy to commit murder, because of her notorious web site with the gunsights on Democrats she wanted to remove. I've been following the story closely in the media (and I don't mean Fox News), and I've concluded that, probably, Sarah Palin and her web site weren't involved in this at all. The young man who did this wasn't listening to the Tea Party or Glen Beck; he was listening to the voices in his head. If you put Sarah Palin on a platform in front of him, he might take a shot at her too.
Is the violent rhetoric used by Palin, by the Fox News commentators, and by a lot of people on the right, excusable? No, I don't think it is. The left was using this rhetoric in the Sixties - remember "kill the pigs!" - and it was wrong then, and it still is. You may not actually mean the violent things you say as metaphor, but you never know who is listening to you, or what they may do with your suggestions. In that sense, Keith Olbermann was right yesterday when he said we must all stop using metaphors of violence, even though I don't believe in this case that political metaphors of violence were involved at all.
No, yesterday's attack, and all the violent rhetoric we hear around us, are the price of our freedom.
Our constitution says that we have freedom of speech, which means that if we want to publish a photo of our opponent with a gunsight imposed over it, that's our right as Americans. The fact that we have the right to do something doesn't make it "right" in the sense of just, correct, or even sensible.
Our constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms, which means that if a troubled young man decides to buy an automatic pistol, he has every right to do so, and what he does with it is up to him.
Another amendment (I can't recall which) is normally used today to say that we cannot force mentally ill people into treatment. This young man clearly needed treatment; he was kicked out of the local community college unless he were to come back with a clearance from a mental health professional. The combination of this attitude with the free access to firearms allowed a deeply disturbed young man to buy a gun and kill six people.
I spent 19 years as a computer system programmer, in charge of maintaining IBM mainframe and Sun Solaris servers. The first thing you learn as a system programmer is that you have absolute authority to do everything on the box - it's called the "God ID" - and this authority is dangerous. You have to think about what you're doing. You have to consider consequences. Freedom is dangerous. Americans have many freedoms. We are, in fact, free to do a number of things that are totally stupid. We have to start thinking about what we do and say. We could start by trying to disagree with each other civilly.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Freedom of Speech
The latest brouhaha in the blogosphere has been sparked by one John Stossel, a columnist for Fox News. Mr. Stossel has expressed the opinion that a major section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, to allow businesses serving the public to refuse service on the basis of race. He may have thought this up himself, although we heard the proposal first from Rand Paul. His position seems to be that, since "everybody" now knows that discriminating on the basis of race is wrong, businesses that do so will lose customers through the operation of the market. Since it didn't work that way in the Jim Crow era, I don't know why he thinks it will work now, but he's entitled to make a public fool of himself if he chooses.
I learned of this through a FaceBook "share" of a petition, originating on ColorOfChange.org, entitled, Tell Fox: "Fire John Stossel." The petition is addressed to Rupert Murdoch, and asks him to fire Stossel to "show America that your media company has no place for the values Mr. Stossel espouses."
I agree with the petition originators that Mr. Stossel's (and Mr. Paul's) opinions are offensive. I also believe they're wrong. But I'm afraid they (the petitioners) display a total lack of understanding, first of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and secondly of Rupert Murdoch.
I feel quite strongly about the First Amendment. Like Voltaire, I don't agree with a single word Messrs. Stossel and Paul say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. There've been a lot of arguments recently over what does and doesn't constitute protected political speech, but this case is practically the type specimen. He thinks we should repeal part of a law. He has every right to express that opinion. It's a long, long journey from an opinion on a news broadcast and the actual repeal of part of the Civil Rights Act.
If you only allow free expression of opinions that you approve of, you don't support free speech. Speech is only truly free when it's available to the opinions we despise. What better way to refute these positions than to state them publicly and debate them openly? Sunshine is a great disinfectant.
Then there's the petitioners' misunderstanding of Rupert Murdoch, which is quite spectacular. Mr. Murdoch is a known quantity. He's been around for a long time. Fox News allows Mr. Stossel to express his opinions there because Fox, and Mr. Murdoch, understand that controversial opinions sell air-time; and selling air-time is what Fox and Mr. Murdoch are all about. Are they exploiting the First Amendment for commercial gain? Sure they are. So are a lot of people. And it's perfectly legal as long as all they state is opinion, and they don't try to present it as fact. I don't know whether Rupert Murdoch personally agrees with John Stossel or not, but it doesn't matter. Mr. Murdoch's personal opinions are irrelevant; the political slant of the Fox News organization is very clear, extremely consistent over time, and lined up perfectly with Mr. Stossel's rabble-rousing opinions.
I learned of this through a FaceBook "share" of a petition, originating on ColorOfChange.org, entitled, Tell Fox: "Fire John Stossel." The petition is addressed to Rupert Murdoch, and asks him to fire Stossel to "show America that your media company has no place for the values Mr. Stossel espouses."
I agree with the petition originators that Mr. Stossel's (and Mr. Paul's) opinions are offensive. I also believe they're wrong. But I'm afraid they (the petitioners) display a total lack of understanding, first of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and secondly of Rupert Murdoch.
I feel quite strongly about the First Amendment. Like Voltaire, I don't agree with a single word Messrs. Stossel and Paul say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. There've been a lot of arguments recently over what does and doesn't constitute protected political speech, but this case is practically the type specimen. He thinks we should repeal part of a law. He has every right to express that opinion. It's a long, long journey from an opinion on a news broadcast and the actual repeal of part of the Civil Rights Act.
If you only allow free expression of opinions that you approve of, you don't support free speech. Speech is only truly free when it's available to the opinions we despise. What better way to refute these positions than to state them publicly and debate them openly? Sunshine is a great disinfectant.
Then there's the petitioners' misunderstanding of Rupert Murdoch, which is quite spectacular. Mr. Murdoch is a known quantity. He's been around for a long time. Fox News allows Mr. Stossel to express his opinions there because Fox, and Mr. Murdoch, understand that controversial opinions sell air-time; and selling air-time is what Fox and Mr. Murdoch are all about. Are they exploiting the First Amendment for commercial gain? Sure they are. So are a lot of people. And it's perfectly legal as long as all they state is opinion, and they don't try to present it as fact. I don't know whether Rupert Murdoch personally agrees with John Stossel or not, but it doesn't matter. Mr. Murdoch's personal opinions are irrelevant; the political slant of the Fox News organization is very clear, extremely consistent over time, and lined up perfectly with Mr. Stossel's rabble-rousing opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)