The topic of liberty is not one easily understood. It took a complex, winding path to being the basis for a society. Along the way, the were many tangible examples of how throwing off authoritarian pressures allowed for personal and cultural growth, enabling many to pursue happiness. We have not yet arrived at true liberty, but we are close enough to have thrown off the vast majority of false on-high precepts placed upon us.
Alas, and akin to the title of this blog, the blade was not tempered correctly and has warped. Liberty is ordered chaos. The belief that every individual has a duty to himself and to his community; to pursue what is best while not bringing harm to the world around him. The chaos comes from allowing individuals to act in an individualistic way, finding their own path, and dictating their own priorities. The order demanded from liberty is that a disciplined approach to pursue life in an individualistic way does not prevent others from doing the same. This small societal law ensures we can each seek to better ourselves and our place without depriving others of the same opportunity; liberty does not, however, dictate that we must all take the same path.
Surely reading this makes it clear that my description of liberty here are not very well represented in our culture at large. I did start off the previous paragraph with a note of how we seem to have wandered away from the principles of liberty. The individualistic drive is innate in all of us, but to survive as a culture or a community, it must be mindful, disciplined, and aware. Conversely, taking the individualistic drive and divorcing it from sensibility, and one is left with anarchy. Unchecked hyper-individualism is unconcerned about consequences to others by way of one's own actions.
In short, liberty is ordered chaos. Anarchy is chaos ordered. There is a call within anarchy to not just be focused wholly on the self, but to do so in a manner that is callous towards the outcomes for others. Ironic in that anarchy is supposed to operate without order, but the philosophy of anarchy orders its adherents act in a manner that is devoid of order.
Marrying these lukewarm coffee thoughts with what has been a personal motto of mine (we are two steps out of the jungle, not from utopia), I have come to the conclusion that liberty--as it should--has allowed for a perversion of itself to operate. It is not just that we have the freedom granted to us by liberty, but that there are some of us who have thrown liberty to the side in the name of individualistic principles. The loss of structure, either through out-dated punitive measures brought about by authoritarian rule or by the well disciplined mind, has created pockets of moral failings and cultural anarchy on one end and the return of authoritarian lust on the other.
Liberty now lives in the gray area of having failed us but not. Moral education and awareness fosters liberty; promising freedom without morality ensures chaos. In the name of liberty, it should be a greater focus of society at large to educate young people in morality and the meaning of liberty (I may appear to be enacting my own law on myself, but hold off on that for a moment). There is no dogmatism here, however, unless we view liberty, perhaps the highest of human philosophical achievements, as being a dogmatically held belief. By teaching the virtues of self-discipline and the spectrum of human morality, we can hope to develop a world where we have tougher minds and softer hearts.
There is much more to be said about this, and I am sure I will continue to write on the matters of liberty, freedom of speech, and of the failures of understanding those principles by society (and the damage that it causes). For now, though, I am out of coffee.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, September 18, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Post 52 -- Why write?
What seems to be an all too often occurrence is the emphasis on presentation over substance. A point of fact or rhetorical musing can only be good if presented well. It seems to me a failing of our education and systems which encourage personal growth, develop empathy, and foster an inquisitive mind.
Take TED Talks for example: given the same speaker with the same education and the same break throughs and put him or her on a street corner, would people listen as intently and applaud on cue? I am reminded of a 60 Minutes special looking at the immense strides in neurological oncology at Duke University, where physicians and researchers have been using the Poliovirus to infect and kill glioblastoma, a brutal malignant cancer in the brain that knows no age, race, or gender restrictions. In the report (at 5:25), Scott Pelly states: "As it turns out, when you're one of the world's leading cancer doctors, you can wear what you like." Pelly is referring directly to the Deputy Director of the Poliovirus Clinical Trials Dr. A. Henry Friedman. For those not interested in watching, Dr. Friedman was dressed in a Duke sweatshirt, jeans, and runners. The perception of an accomplished doctor leading a bleeding edge medical trial dressed as a Sunday Ticket bum had to be squared with a quip by the report to assure people of Dr. Friedman's credentials. In other words, Dr. Friedman's presentation was not, in of itself, good enough to make his point.
Now, most people reading this will look at what I've just written and say, 'That's preposterous!' But consider my original reference to TED Talks: would you listen to a person like that if they were in a less organized venue and dressed casually? Simply put, the answer is no.
This bothers me. Not enough to change the whole world, but enough to sit down and put some words to it. Poorly structured on some no-name blogging site which is mostly frequented by bots and my parents. My presentation is poor and boring and does not even have much support outside of my linking it on my Twitter feed on occasion. (Okay, after every post, at least once.) Does that mean the points I make here are worthless or too weak to be considered? I'd like to think not. Not because of some small self-assured part of me, but because of the process by which I come to my conclusions.
The title for this particular post is something of an insight into the slow process of writing for me. There are large gaps in my post frequency. There are rants and there are posts where I read them over slowly to be sure to eliminate as many errors, logical inconsistencies, and unnecessary tangents as I can. I write because I want to write well. I won't write well without going through a long process of writing poorly. Editing. Reading better writers than myself. Writing more. Reading more. And so forth.
I write because I have ideas that I want to put down in some venue that someone might glean some information from. By no means am I an authority on some matters, but that does not mean all points made here are moot. The act of writing improves my future writing. Writing with purpose now will eventually lead to something resembling good writing in the future. I have the topics which I enjoy most: ethics, morality, anti-theism, contrarian approaches to some matters, and the occasional personal insight. I can grow from there, pruning out items that are no longer interesting or pressing to me.
It is a bit of a path to being enlightened. Talking to yourself gives no feedback. Posting something online doesn't really, either, with the immense amount of noise, but at least it has the potential. It refines ideas slowly by forcing me to read what my thoughts are. I can conclude whether or not the drive home rant was something of value or just me passing time. Being a good writer will take time. It will pay off, though: good writers are often better able to present their ideas more succinctly and with better flow. Their good points are obviously good, not requiring them to be verbose or their audience equipped with a thesaurus. I can be better at this and I strive to do so. Being a polemic on the way is also enjoyable.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Take TED Talks for example: given the same speaker with the same education and the same break throughs and put him or her on a street corner, would people listen as intently and applaud on cue? I am reminded of a 60 Minutes special looking at the immense strides in neurological oncology at Duke University, where physicians and researchers have been using the Poliovirus to infect and kill glioblastoma, a brutal malignant cancer in the brain that knows no age, race, or gender restrictions. In the report (at 5:25), Scott Pelly states: "As it turns out, when you're one of the world's leading cancer doctors, you can wear what you like." Pelly is referring directly to the Deputy Director of the Poliovirus Clinical Trials Dr. A. Henry Friedman. For those not interested in watching, Dr. Friedman was dressed in a Duke sweatshirt, jeans, and runners. The perception of an accomplished doctor leading a bleeding edge medical trial dressed as a Sunday Ticket bum had to be squared with a quip by the report to assure people of Dr. Friedman's credentials. In other words, Dr. Friedman's presentation was not, in of itself, good enough to make his point.
Now, most people reading this will look at what I've just written and say, 'That's preposterous!' But consider my original reference to TED Talks: would you listen to a person like that if they were in a less organized venue and dressed casually? Simply put, the answer is no.
This bothers me. Not enough to change the whole world, but enough to sit down and put some words to it. Poorly structured on some no-name blogging site which is mostly frequented by bots and my parents. My presentation is poor and boring and does not even have much support outside of my linking it on my Twitter feed on occasion. (Okay, after every post, at least once.) Does that mean the points I make here are worthless or too weak to be considered? I'd like to think not. Not because of some small self-assured part of me, but because of the process by which I come to my conclusions.
The title for this particular post is something of an insight into the slow process of writing for me. There are large gaps in my post frequency. There are rants and there are posts where I read them over slowly to be sure to eliminate as many errors, logical inconsistencies, and unnecessary tangents as I can. I write because I want to write well. I won't write well without going through a long process of writing poorly. Editing. Reading better writers than myself. Writing more. Reading more. And so forth.
I write because I have ideas that I want to put down in some venue that someone might glean some information from. By no means am I an authority on some matters, but that does not mean all points made here are moot. The act of writing improves my future writing. Writing with purpose now will eventually lead to something resembling good writing in the future. I have the topics which I enjoy most: ethics, morality, anti-theism, contrarian approaches to some matters, and the occasional personal insight. I can grow from there, pruning out items that are no longer interesting or pressing to me.
It is a bit of a path to being enlightened. Talking to yourself gives no feedback. Posting something online doesn't really, either, with the immense amount of noise, but at least it has the potential. It refines ideas slowly by forcing me to read what my thoughts are. I can conclude whether or not the drive home rant was something of value or just me passing time. Being a good writer will take time. It will pay off, though: good writers are often better able to present their ideas more succinctly and with better flow. Their good points are obviously good, not requiring them to be verbose or their audience equipped with a thesaurus. I can be better at this and I strive to do so. Being a polemic on the way is also enjoyable.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Post 51 -- Why we must react
It's not that we should react, it is that we must react to those who are showing their unabashed support for Sarah Nyberg. After she confirmed the allegations of her being a pedophile, she went on to claim the victimhood mantle in the same slide. Her personal race to the bottom is to draw attention and support from the dysfunctional progressive movement which has willing and overwhelmingly come to support her. Kluwe, Alexander, and Chu et al. have voiced their uncritical and morally vacuous backing of Nyberg.
I must react to this to not be the complicit fool which the online social justice posse aiding Nyberg have proven themselves to be. It is not as if Nyberg has been slandered here; rather, Nyberg has openly admitted that the chat logs and conversations used by Breitbart journalist Milo Yianopolous are authentic in her own column on Medium. In it, Nyberg attempts to pivot on the accusations of being a pedophile and make the case she was an "edgelord"--a chan culture word for taking morally fringe topics as jokes. This is simply baseless and telling of how morally bankrupt Nyberg is. She not only admitted to being a pedophile, something Milo presented in a detailed manner, she also admitted to sharing pictures of her then 8-year-old cousin which those who received them stated they could see genitals.
This is no longer being edgy. This is the distribution of child pornography. The joke is over and you've gone too far. The reckless attitude she has towards the subject leaves me suspicious of her possessing any morality. Yet, the moral crusaders of the progressive movement wish to tell the general public of how we are failing to be our moral best because we still use gender specific titles and pronouns. To support Nyberg after admitting to sharing what can only be called child porn is to be complicit with Nyberg's actions and the continual actions of all other people who seek to abuse children.
Do not mistake this as hyperbole. Children are a particularly vulnerable part of the population. They rely on adults to show them right from wrong, good from bad, smart from dumb. Children have an implicit trust among their social rings: parents, siblings, family members, close friends, and certain authority figures. When it was found out that the child rape problem within the Catholic church was not simply a few isolated cases but a worldwide effort to harbor and protect child rapists as lead up by the previous Pope, strong Catholics began to question the Church's moral integrity. Priests and Bishops exploited the implicit trust that the children had, abusing them in the most sickening of ways. The Church did not excommunicate a single one of Priests implicated. Now we have the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale, in the social justice progressive movement.
Nyberg did exactly what the child raping Catholic Priests did: used a child's trust in them to get close. Thankfully, Nyberg was unable to abuse her favorite cousin, mostly because of the wise actions by the young girl's parents to never leave Nyberg unsupervised around her. But even after these revelations, people are still supporting Nyberg!
Supporting a person who exploits children for their own sexual gain is supporting a system which there are a tragically large number of people involved. To support Nyberg is to support the Jared Fogles and Jerry Sanduskys. To support them is to support the multitudes of other faceless predators who pray on children's innocence and trust. And just like those Catholics who forgave the Church for its role in protecting child rapists, the social justice community is falling in line as pedophile apologists, simply to protect the ends of the movement.
Here is where we can celebrate free speech, though. If we were to criminalize speaking about child abuse, we would never have learned of the large support base for it in the social justice world. I am sure there are many progressives who are sickened both by Nyberg and by her supporters, but it will likely take a day or two for them to gather their thoughts and write their rebukes against being called pedophile apologists. Until then, those of us who view the progressive movement as a cancer in society can point to yet another example of the moral failings of its core and how it is so willing to justify and means as long as the movement achieves its ends.
The ends du jour are those of trans-person rights, something Nyberg is failing to hide behind.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
I must react to this to not be the complicit fool which the online social justice posse aiding Nyberg have proven themselves to be. It is not as if Nyberg has been slandered here; rather, Nyberg has openly admitted that the chat logs and conversations used by Breitbart journalist Milo Yianopolous are authentic in her own column on Medium. In it, Nyberg attempts to pivot on the accusations of being a pedophile and make the case she was an "edgelord"--a chan culture word for taking morally fringe topics as jokes. This is simply baseless and telling of how morally bankrupt Nyberg is. She not only admitted to being a pedophile, something Milo presented in a detailed manner, she also admitted to sharing pictures of her then 8-year-old cousin which those who received them stated they could see genitals.
This is no longer being edgy. This is the distribution of child pornography. The joke is over and you've gone too far. The reckless attitude she has towards the subject leaves me suspicious of her possessing any morality. Yet, the moral crusaders of the progressive movement wish to tell the general public of how we are failing to be our moral best because we still use gender specific titles and pronouns. To support Nyberg after admitting to sharing what can only be called child porn is to be complicit with Nyberg's actions and the continual actions of all other people who seek to abuse children.
Do not mistake this as hyperbole. Children are a particularly vulnerable part of the population. They rely on adults to show them right from wrong, good from bad, smart from dumb. Children have an implicit trust among their social rings: parents, siblings, family members, close friends, and certain authority figures. When it was found out that the child rape problem within the Catholic church was not simply a few isolated cases but a worldwide effort to harbor and protect child rapists as lead up by the previous Pope, strong Catholics began to question the Church's moral integrity. Priests and Bishops exploited the implicit trust that the children had, abusing them in the most sickening of ways. The Church did not excommunicate a single one of Priests implicated. Now we have the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale, in the social justice progressive movement.
Nyberg did exactly what the child raping Catholic Priests did: used a child's trust in them to get close. Thankfully, Nyberg was unable to abuse her favorite cousin, mostly because of the wise actions by the young girl's parents to never leave Nyberg unsupervised around her. But even after these revelations, people are still supporting Nyberg!
Supporting a person who exploits children for their own sexual gain is supporting a system which there are a tragically large number of people involved. To support Nyberg is to support the Jared Fogles and Jerry Sanduskys. To support them is to support the multitudes of other faceless predators who pray on children's innocence and trust. And just like those Catholics who forgave the Church for its role in protecting child rapists, the social justice community is falling in line as pedophile apologists, simply to protect the ends of the movement.
Here is where we can celebrate free speech, though. If we were to criminalize speaking about child abuse, we would never have learned of the large support base for it in the social justice world. I am sure there are many progressives who are sickened both by Nyberg and by her supporters, but it will likely take a day or two for them to gather their thoughts and write their rebukes against being called pedophile apologists. Until then, those of us who view the progressive movement as a cancer in society can point to yet another example of the moral failings of its core and how it is so willing to justify and means as long as the movement achieves its ends.
The ends du jour are those of trans-person rights, something Nyberg is failing to hide behind.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, September 11, 2015
Post 50 -- One more observation on hate speech laws (in Canada)
Self-admittedly, I am prattling on about hate speech laws in Canada. Although, additional reflection and further conversations on the topic illuminate new approaches and ways for which to argue for freedom of offensive and hateful speech.
Laws which aim to restrict our ability to speak openly on any subject harm us at our very core. Not just as the speaker, however, but as the potential audience. A law that designed to tell us as rational, free, and adult people that our sensitivities may be harmed if certain words are spoken is at a minimum condescending and, more likely, infantilizing. This law tells me there are ideas held by others which may be offensive to the point of me experiencing discomfort. A set of guidelines notifying me there are pictures so obscene to me that the only recourse is punitive justice.
While at university at the University of British Columbia, I was made aware of this law existence thanks to a local student feminist group. At the time, I agreed with many of their aims and goals, but was not comfortable agreeing with them on the utility and necessity of using laws to punish people who say rude, offensive, or obscene things to a generalized group. After all, the use of the hard line rhetoric used by student groups dances closely to the edge of falling victim to such a law, a fact which I was never able to impart.
Support of a law simply because it is a law is both foolish and immoral. There have been many laws in the Western world which have been evidently immoral. Take, for example, laws which have clearly stated marriage as being between one man and one woman. Or laws which prohibited the marriage between a black and a white. These were laws; were we, as the lowly citizens in a democracy, supposed to accept them as laws, despite the obvious prejudice and despicable nature? There is disconnect here of those who lack the ability to discern morality from law; a law does not define morality, but morality must inform laws. It was those who operated from this premise that became successful in the fight for marriage equality.
Curtailing speech on the grounds of it being perceived as offensive is no different. It is at this point where people who support free speech falter when it most counts. Offensive speech is not in inherently hateful nor pointless. In most instances, it is the speech which must be most protected. An example of this would be Austria's Holocaust speech laws, which present a mostly inaccurate account of the Holocaust as the only official history and disagreement or dissent is viewed as hate speech, resulting in imprisonment. The law, while recognizing the Holocaust, obfuscates the truth, ceding power to the state to dictate a false history.
In the United States, the approach to assessing free speech from that of other speech offensives (e.g., liable or insider trading) is that of view point neutrality. Take, for example, the Klu Klux Klan marching down streets to show support for the Confederate Flag. The speech, which is hateful, is protected by law, as the majority view on what is good, sensible, or proper has no influence on what can or cannot be said. To block the KKK from speaking or showing signs, the state would deprive those within that community of knowing the size and composition of a racist, evangelical organization. View point neutrality ensures those with dissenting or unpopular views are not discriminated against.
Now, this is an important concept to understand: while the easy majority of individuals look down on the views and beliefs of the KKK, there once was a time when the KKK's views were held by the majority, and it was the views of the Civil Rights pioneers. While today we would call it a stretch to claim "all men are equal" as hate speech against the white majority, history in context would tell us otherwise (look, for example, at modern day preachers who claim they are discriminated against because same-sex marriage is allowed). Without view point neutrality, courts could have issued warrants against members in the Civil Rights movement for disturbing the peace because of their speech and the effects of it.
If one can argue that the speech of the KKK must be silenced because it is heinous, harmful, and retards an inclusive society, then he must also be willing to accept that he is arguing against the voices of the minority on what may be viewed as a contentious issue in the modern context. We were brave in fighting for same-sex marriage, but will we silence those who now argue for legal polygamy/polyandry? I would hope not; rather, we ought to listen to their arguments (which are nearly identical to those used by same-sex marriage proponents, something Justice Roberts clearly pointed out) and judge them on their merits and not on their popularity. Hitchens said it best when he said ,"Do not take comfort in the false consensus of the majority."
The law tells us what is moral (i.e., being offensive and hateful is worthy of punishment, thus is not moral) without being able to justify its position. It is unable to do so because of the subjective nature of what can be defined as hateful. Well, there is a law that says there is some speech which is hateful after all--but we run into the same problem: because there is a law that says some speech is hateful, does that truly mean there can be some speech which is inherently hateful, regardless of context? And hateful to the point of inciting hatred against others? No, there is no such power vested in any law.
Morals imposed through law is a fool's errand. There is no way to ensure people will act civil and 'proper' simply because there are laws, codes, or policies which demand it. Most people see the value in being polite, respectful, and tactful in their daily lives, while others choose the freedom to express themselves as they wish and are comfortable with the consequences of doing so. Freedom of speech allows for both paths and places no moral judgement on either choice. A hate speech prohibition might seem like a positive step to ensure safe spaces or a more polite society, but enforcing such a law will undermine the view point neutrality while passing a moral judgement on what the state deems to be offensive.
Moreover, hate speech laws would not be applied equally. If the citizenry held a specific disdain for a particular group which the governing bodies also shared, even hateful speech which incites violence would be allowed (e.g., Muslim protests in Pakistan following the publishing of the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Mohammad). Further problems arise when you have individuals representing a movement using divisive and hateful language as part of their rhetoric, as is the case of the Black Lives Matter movement. One such 'spokesperson' for BLM lamented that she had to push through "a crowd of white racists", relegating all persons of Caucasian decent to being inherently racist. In a land where hate speech laws exist and freedom of speech does not protect minority voices, this protester--and likely anyone associated with her on that day--would be charged with hate speech crimes.
The BLM example is probably the clearest there is when it comes to understanding why freedom of speech is vital to social and civil development. Not all elements of the BLM movement are as heinous as the example above, but all those who associate with the movement would be targets of hate speech laws if there were any in the United States. Not because of white supremacy, but simply because of how such a law can be wielded capriciously by those in power who disagree.
In the end, freedom of speech is what protects minority voices more than any series or prohibitions on speech ever could. While a prohibition or law may seem well intended, it will eventually be used as a means of shutting down the very people the law was intended to protect. The only guarantee of protection comes from the freedom to say what we want and to engage in the discussion that comes from an open environment. Not only a discussion to clarify statements, but to further develop ideas and challenge ourselves to better understand and justify what we believe. Freedom of speech must be protected in its entirety without any erosion in the form of codes, policies, or hate speech laws in order grow as a society--the death of free speech is the end of a free society.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Laws which aim to restrict our ability to speak openly on any subject harm us at our very core. Not just as the speaker, however, but as the potential audience. A law that designed to tell us as rational, free, and adult people that our sensitivities may be harmed if certain words are spoken is at a minimum condescending and, more likely, infantilizing. This law tells me there are ideas held by others which may be offensive to the point of me experiencing discomfort. A set of guidelines notifying me there are pictures so obscene to me that the only recourse is punitive justice.
While at university at the University of British Columbia, I was made aware of this law existence thanks to a local student feminist group. At the time, I agreed with many of their aims and goals, but was not comfortable agreeing with them on the utility and necessity of using laws to punish people who say rude, offensive, or obscene things to a generalized group. After all, the use of the hard line rhetoric used by student groups dances closely to the edge of falling victim to such a law, a fact which I was never able to impart.
Support of a law simply because it is a law is both foolish and immoral. There have been many laws in the Western world which have been evidently immoral. Take, for example, laws which have clearly stated marriage as being between one man and one woman. Or laws which prohibited the marriage between a black and a white. These were laws; were we, as the lowly citizens in a democracy, supposed to accept them as laws, despite the obvious prejudice and despicable nature? There is disconnect here of those who lack the ability to discern morality from law; a law does not define morality, but morality must inform laws. It was those who operated from this premise that became successful in the fight for marriage equality.
Curtailing speech on the grounds of it being perceived as offensive is no different. It is at this point where people who support free speech falter when it most counts. Offensive speech is not in inherently hateful nor pointless. In most instances, it is the speech which must be most protected. An example of this would be Austria's Holocaust speech laws, which present a mostly inaccurate account of the Holocaust as the only official history and disagreement or dissent is viewed as hate speech, resulting in imprisonment. The law, while recognizing the Holocaust, obfuscates the truth, ceding power to the state to dictate a false history.
In the United States, the approach to assessing free speech from that of other speech offensives (e.g., liable or insider trading) is that of view point neutrality. Take, for example, the Klu Klux Klan marching down streets to show support for the Confederate Flag. The speech, which is hateful, is protected by law, as the majority view on what is good, sensible, or proper has no influence on what can or cannot be said. To block the KKK from speaking or showing signs, the state would deprive those within that community of knowing the size and composition of a racist, evangelical organization. View point neutrality ensures those with dissenting or unpopular views are not discriminated against.
Now, this is an important concept to understand: while the easy majority of individuals look down on the views and beliefs of the KKK, there once was a time when the KKK's views were held by the majority, and it was the views of the Civil Rights pioneers. While today we would call it a stretch to claim "all men are equal" as hate speech against the white majority, history in context would tell us otherwise (look, for example, at modern day preachers who claim they are discriminated against because same-sex marriage is allowed). Without view point neutrality, courts could have issued warrants against members in the Civil Rights movement for disturbing the peace because of their speech and the effects of it.
If one can argue that the speech of the KKK must be silenced because it is heinous, harmful, and retards an inclusive society, then he must also be willing to accept that he is arguing against the voices of the minority on what may be viewed as a contentious issue in the modern context. We were brave in fighting for same-sex marriage, but will we silence those who now argue for legal polygamy/polyandry? I would hope not; rather, we ought to listen to their arguments (which are nearly identical to those used by same-sex marriage proponents, something Justice Roberts clearly pointed out) and judge them on their merits and not on their popularity. Hitchens said it best when he said ,"Do not take comfort in the false consensus of the majority."
The law tells us what is moral (i.e., being offensive and hateful is worthy of punishment, thus is not moral) without being able to justify its position. It is unable to do so because of the subjective nature of what can be defined as hateful. Well, there is a law that says there is some speech which is hateful after all--but we run into the same problem: because there is a law that says some speech is hateful, does that truly mean there can be some speech which is inherently hateful, regardless of context? And hateful to the point of inciting hatred against others? No, there is no such power vested in any law.
Morals imposed through law is a fool's errand. There is no way to ensure people will act civil and 'proper' simply because there are laws, codes, or policies which demand it. Most people see the value in being polite, respectful, and tactful in their daily lives, while others choose the freedom to express themselves as they wish and are comfortable with the consequences of doing so. Freedom of speech allows for both paths and places no moral judgement on either choice. A hate speech prohibition might seem like a positive step to ensure safe spaces or a more polite society, but enforcing such a law will undermine the view point neutrality while passing a moral judgement on what the state deems to be offensive.
Moreover, hate speech laws would not be applied equally. If the citizenry held a specific disdain for a particular group which the governing bodies also shared, even hateful speech which incites violence would be allowed (e.g., Muslim protests in Pakistan following the publishing of the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Mohammad). Further problems arise when you have individuals representing a movement using divisive and hateful language as part of their rhetoric, as is the case of the Black Lives Matter movement. One such 'spokesperson' for BLM lamented that she had to push through "a crowd of white racists", relegating all persons of Caucasian decent to being inherently racist. In a land where hate speech laws exist and freedom of speech does not protect minority voices, this protester--and likely anyone associated with her on that day--would be charged with hate speech crimes.
The BLM example is probably the clearest there is when it comes to understanding why freedom of speech is vital to social and civil development. Not all elements of the BLM movement are as heinous as the example above, but all those who associate with the movement would be targets of hate speech laws if there were any in the United States. Not because of white supremacy, but simply because of how such a law can be wielded capriciously by those in power who disagree.
In the end, freedom of speech is what protects minority voices more than any series or prohibitions on speech ever could. While a prohibition or law may seem well intended, it will eventually be used as a means of shutting down the very people the law was intended to protect. The only guarantee of protection comes from the freedom to say what we want and to engage in the discussion that comes from an open environment. Not only a discussion to clarify statements, but to further develop ideas and challenge ourselves to better understand and justify what we believe. Freedom of speech must be protected in its entirety without any erosion in the form of codes, policies, or hate speech laws in order grow as a society--the death of free speech is the end of a free society.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)