 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Moreover—and here's where this argument bites in this debate—such a skewed approach to rights in this instance leads us to prioritise, say, the right to be a sinister racist creep over the right to feel physically, psychologically and socially safe. |
Well, that's the equation right there, I suppose: how do we do our best to defend each of these goals when they come into conflict with each other? And how much can we reasonably afford to cut into each? I'm presuming, of course, that you agree with me that the right to be a "sinister racist creep" is important and worthy of being seriously defended. After all, what would not having that right look like? It'd be well into the realm of censorship and thoughtcrime.
A question for me is how we can achieve the best possible utilitarian state of affairs (my goal as well as yours) without having a few principles hanging around as neon signs. Not to be defended religiously at any cost—I'm with you on that—but to make sure they don't get lost in the noise of short-term utilitarian argumentation.
The one big problem with utilitarianism is that it requires such complex, multifaceted equations that our brains simply aren't capable of holding all of the information in our heads at once. Hence, our natural predilection for short cuts: "the right to life"; "equality"; "free speech". As you say, when these become mantras they start becoming harmful and counterproductive; but it would be even worse, in my view, to chuck them out of the window altogether. My argument is that "free speech", much like "the right to be free from violence", need to be in our line of sight at all times, even if we sometimes have cause to override them. They certainly haven't reached their esteemed cultural position by accident.
I'm not sure of your link between the Iraq War and too much support for free speech—it seems a little tenuous, particularly given the fact that the climate in the US at that time was hardly one in which free speech or civil liberties of any kind were flourishing (c.f. the patriot act, among other things). Can you expand on that a bit more?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, David, you haven't been paying attention. I'll help you out with this one. Simply cast your eye over the list below and tell me what these things have in common.
- The Global Financial Crisis
- The flood of refugees pouring over our pristine beaches
- The nationwide education crisis
- The election of an Abbott government in Australia
- The cancerous growth of invasive and corrupt "security" forces in most Western nations
- Labor's eternal infighting and disunity
- The failure of austerity economics
- The frightening rise of populist neo-fascism in Europe
- The dissapearance of Flight MH370
- The performance shortcomings of the new Joint Strike Fighter
- Rupert Murdoch
- China's aggressive, expansionist foreign policy
- Australia's failure to grasp the importance of the knowledge economy
- The loss of sea ice in the Arctic and today's all-time record April temperature in Australia
(Ans: they are all direct results of the Iraq war. Or possibly direct causes, I always forget which. Sorry. Ask PTID to explain, he's good at this.)
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lest anyone fall under the misapprehension that the Liberal Party have a sincere commitment to civil liberties, check this out:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/george-brandis-holocaust-denial-would-not-become-legal-under-my-new-laws-2014-3
| Quote: | “It all depends on the particular facts but, might I remind you, that racial vilification would always capture the concept of Holocaust denial,” the Attorney-General told ABC Radio.
“For those who are concerned about Holocaust denial, I can’t see how Holocaust denial fails to be racial vilification. |
Huh. But, I suppose, denying the stolen generation is perfectly fine when your favourite columnist does it. And the crowning irony is that Brandis is advocating a much, much stricter interpretation of the racial vilification act than actually exists at the moment—for this topic, anyway.
So, it's not really about free speech after all, it seems. It's about being allowed to break the right kind of taboos. The intellectual shallowness of our government's senior figures continues to astound me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | (Ans: they are all direct results of the Iraq war. Or possibly direct causes, I always forget which. Sorry. Ask PTID to explain, he's good at this.) |
Indeed! All roads lead to Baghdad! Or was that Babylon?
And when that doesn't work, blame that sinister Dick Cheney bloke!
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | [I'm not sure of your link between the Iraq War and too much support for free speech—it seems a little tenuous, particularly given the fact that the climate in the US at that time was hardly one in which free speech or civil liberties of any kind were flourishing (c.f. the patriot act, among other things). Can you expand on that a bit more? |
I'm not saying there's "too much" free speech, I'm saying other rights are more fundamental than it (food, shelter, health, safety), while the utility of free speech is a more complex story than the view we've inherited claims.
As an example of the utility aspect, there was endless "free speech" on the Iraq War (it was debated day and night for months), but that "free speech" was largely falsity, imperialist ignorance, and hysteria, resulting in disaster; in other words, of gravely negative utility.
The point being the real world benefits of this "free expression" we cling to aren't always straightforward by any means. Not only is speech often less "free" than people think due to ignorance, ill intention, and so on, but it often influences for the bad. Again, that's not to deny the foundational importance of free speech, but any serious analysis has to deal with the actual limits of this mythical panacea and weight them accordingly in any debate about rights.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I guess this gets back to what I was talking about earlier about the difference between being permitted to speak outwards and the flow of information being restricted. Although one can certainly imagine cases in which limitations on free speech might lead to mass acceptance of flawed government policy (say, if it were deemed unlawful to criticise a proposed war), I would argue that the whole topic is tangential in this instance.
We seem to have slightly conflicting definitions of free speech, and it's a conflict that I'd like to explore a little further. For instance, I would argue that ignorance and bad information don't actually constrain free speech as such. While they obviously effect the merit of what's being said, it matters little to the actual right being discussed; for, merit is rather a different matter than liberty and, crucially, something that can only ever be measured subjectively. The "foundational importance" that we both ascribe to free speech is surely fundamentally about the ability to express what is on your mind without fear of censorship or negative personal repercussions. We can apply limitations to that freedom, and we do, but that's what free speech is.
When taken seriously, its benefits are clear: dissent, criticism and radical theory—all crucial ingredients for personal/societal freedom and political progress—become possible. Those who criticise our government or institutions need no longer fear for their personal safety or engage in self-censorship. That's its end goal, really, and any student of human history will agree that it's not one that can ever be taken for granted. I think most people who defend freedom of speech (from an intellectual as opposed to dogmatic position) understand that.
Greater access to information, reduction of ignorance and triumph of educated/meritorious opinion may all be by-products of this liberty, but they don't actually lie within its remit. For those equally (or perhaps more) important changes to occur, we need to shift our gaze from free speech and turn to topics like media ownership law, educational access, quality of life and institutionalisation of meritocratic ideals—all vital topics, and, I agree, much more urgent than the repeal of a small section of the racial vilification act.
So, for me, it's not correct that free speech let the team down (or was simply useless) in the case of the Iraq War—that simply wasn't its job. Indeed, it was free speech that enabled so much passionate, open dissent, and it was free speech that permitted the publication of the many documents that served to discredit the US invasion. Too little too late, perhaps, but that wasn't a failing on the part of the concept of free speech, and certainly not a reason to take it less seriously.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^But that's all terribly circular: X is all-important, but when it fails Y was responsible! The more we discuss this the more holes in the received concept appear. We can't even tell if free speech is a cause or an effect; it might simply be a neutral irrelevant factor which is the by-product of something else more concrete such as economic mobility.
This state-of-affairs is hardly surprising for something which has been so blindly and uncritically received, mind you. I will think more about it and add to the topic when I get some time 'ron.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | So, for me, it's not correct that free speech let the team down (or was simply useless) in the case of the Iraq War—that simply wasn't its job. Indeed, it was free speech that enabled so much passionate, open dissent, and it was free speech that permitted the publication of the many documents that served to discredit the US invasion. Too little too late, perhaps, but that wasn't a failing on the part of the concept of free speech, and certainly not a reason to take it less seriously. |
Just a quick addition on the run.
As a point of contrast, take say medical advice. There is no "free speech" in the medical realm; doctors are ethically and legally obligated to provide information of a certain veracity and accuracy.
Yet how much suffering was caused in Iraq by "free speech" that was not required to meet the standard of information doctors are held to? Yet invading a country is infinitely more consequential than Fred Smith's ankle operation.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
I think you're heading off on a very dangerous tangent there.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Just thinking aloud. We at least have to address these things and explain why they're dangerous. Poking at the topic and seeing the reactions tends to indicate to me there's more acculturation and habit underlying views on it than serious thought. I mean, devout Christians also sense "danger" when they allow their minds to wander and imagine a world with no god.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^Just thinking aloud. We at least have to address these things and explain why they're dangerous. Poking at the topic and seeing the reactions tends to indicate to me there's more acculturation and habit underlying views on it than serious thought. I mean, devout Christians also sense "danger" when they allow their minds to wander and imagine a world with no god. |
yep, and like a viper I was about to respond.
instead ill give you something to read:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1199552/posts
yep those Iraqis really wish saddam was still alive
how about 9/11?? hey who gives a flying ****, the yanks probably asked for it hey?
one thing I know, if we are ever attacked, they will be here to help us. I hope you yank haters remember to slam the door on their help. ill have the stealth machine all to myself
a small piece The Independent
"The day after the liberation, my aunt put out a black banner--an Arab mourning ritual--with the names of all her relatives who had been murdered by the regime on it. And she looked down her street, and there were black banners on almost every house. On some houses it looks like a long shopping list. She said to her neighbour, 'You too?' Under Saddam it was a crime to mourn people killed by the regime--it made you seem suspicious too. Everyone was suffering terribly, but they were suffering alone. They just didn't know that everyone else was hating it too."
-- Yasser Alaskary, co-founder of Iraqi Prospect Organisation, an Iraqi freedom group, The Independent (London), September 18, 2003
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Jo, it's well-known now and has been established for years that Iraq had pretty nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks. As for how Iraqis feel now, you'd probably get some different reactions, but I'm guessing that over 10 years of bloodshed has erased much of the immediate relief felt in the aftermath of Saddam's removal.
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | So, for me, it's not correct that free speech let the team down (or was simply useless) in the case of the Iraq War—that simply wasn't its job. Indeed, it was free speech that enabled so much passionate, open dissent, and it was free speech that permitted the publication of the many documents that served to discredit the US invasion. Too little too late, perhaps, but that wasn't a failing on the part of the concept of free speech, and certainly not a reason to take it less seriously. |
Just a quick addition on the run.
As a point of contrast, take say medical advice. There is no "free speech" in the medical realm; doctors are ethically and legally obligated to provide information of a certain veracity and accuracy.
Yet how much suffering was caused in Iraq by "free speech" that was not required to meet the standard of information doctors are held to? Yet invading a country is infinitely more consequential than Fred Smith's ankle operation. |
I suppose you'd have to specify whose free speech ought to have been reined in, then: are we talking government officials? Media reportage? Media speculation? Certainly, deliberate spreading of misinformation ought to be punished, but that's the status quo. I still think the main problem was that dissenting voices weren't given enough airtime, but I can't even dream of how you'd go about legislating for that (perhaps, once again, it comes down to media ownership laws and that sort of thing).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah I don't mean Iraq had any thing to do with 9/11 that's was another nutjob👳
I was just going off on a tangent!!
😎
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Jo, it's well-known now and has been established for years that Iraq had pretty nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist attacks. As for how Iraqis feel now, you'd probably get some different reactions, but I'm guessing that over 10 years of bloodshed has erased much of the immediate relief felt in the aftermath of Saddam's removal.
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | | So, for me, it's not correct that free speech let the team down (or was simply useless) in the case of the Iraq War—that simply wasn't its job. Indeed, it was free speech that enabled so much passionate, open dissent, and it was free speech that permitted the publication of the many documents that served to discredit the US invasion. Too little too late, perhaps, but that wasn't a failing on the part of the concept of free speech, and certainly not a reason to take it less seriously. |
Just a quick addition on the run.
As a point of contrast, take say medical advice. There is no "free speech" in the medical realm; doctors are ethically and legally obligated to provide information of a certain veracity and accuracy.
Yet how much suffering was caused in Iraq by "free speech" that was not required to meet the standard of information doctors are held to? Yet invading a country is infinitely more consequential than Fred Smith's ankle operation. |
I suppose you'd have to specify whose free speech ought to have been reined in, then: are we talking government officials? Media reportage? Media speculation? Certainly, deliberate spreading of misinformation ought to be punished, but that's the status quo. I still think the main problem was that dissenting voices weren't given enough airtime, but I can't even dream of how you'd go about legislating for that (perhaps, once again, it comes down to media ownership laws and that sort of thing). |
Perhaps we need a new set of terms here. For instance, there could be "incidental speech" (the speech of the meaningless trivia of life), unaccountable speech (the speech of speculation and speculative analysis; not necessarily meaningless, but ranging without consequence), and accountable speech (speech that has real world impacts).
We already know that as society becomes better organised and the bar is set higher, legally accountable speech naturally increases. Focusing on complex societies with codified law for a moment, it's not hard to imagine there was some developmental sequence from, say, honour contracts > legal contracts > accountability for deception > accountability for threat > accountability for slander > accountability for incitement > accountability for vilification > extended spheres of accountability (or something like that).
In such a context, extending accountability is a matter of progress and development based on better information and fairer negotiation; it in no way impinges on incidental and speculative speech, which is precisely what 18C is trying to achieve.
In other words, as many before us have argued, and from memory Nulla and WPT above, you're not "lessening free speech", you're "increasing accountability".
I mean, every single advancement since the Dark Ages has been a case of increasing accountability, from property law to the legal system to workplace safety and child protection.
If so, why the sudden panic attack over increased accountability? The real-world effects of racism are scientific fact (there's endless data on it), so extending accountability in this instance is no different from banning some chemical recently proven to be toxic.
Again, this is an exploratory discussion, but the more you poke at the received view the dumber it looks.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
