So, I’m spending the whole of the day today typing my story review notes into something legible. I can barely understand my own handwriting right now, so this might take a while! Until then, I think our last discussion on immigration was very interesting, so I thought I’d spark another (hopefully) interesting discussion.
What do you think of censorship and language legislation? I’ve got a few questions to start things up, but feel free to add your own thought exercises, questions and general musings along the way!
- What does free speech mean to you?
- What do you think of government censorship?
- What do you think of company censorship?
- What about self-censorship?
- Do you agree that language can sometimes be dangerous?
- When do you think the authorities should get involved with threats and dangerous manifestos?
My Views
What does free speech mean to you?
To me, free speech is something that applies to every single member of society to the same degree. It’s the freedom to say what you want to say without being shut up. It is a way to protect citizens from the government’s involvement in what they say – within reason. However, it is not freedom from consequences. You’re allowed to say what you want to, but I am allowed to judge you, distance myself from you or critique you for your words. And if the authorities think you’re a threat because of something you said, it would be stupid of them to not label you as a person of interest.
However, that does not mean that the government should be involved as soon as you say something racist or sexist or homophobic or anti-government. What it means that they watch out for you just in case you do something against the law – if you choose to use your free speech to indicate that you might be a danger to society. You should never be locked away for what you say. However, if your words and your actions indicate that you’re at a high risk of doing something bad, the government should have the freedom to keep an eye on you or even bring you in for questioning.
Free speech does not give someone freedom from being called an a**hole or anything like that. It doesn’t matter if you feel like you’ll lose friends or be judged if you say what you want to say. If no one’s stopping you from saying it, that’s your free speech given to you. If we tried to stop people from criticising you for expressing yourself, we would be going against their free speech. And – I stress again – free speech should be equal for everyone.
So I’m tired of some right-wing personalities complaining that they’re afraid to say something because they might be labelled a racist or a sexist. That doesn’t go against free speech. You’re self-censoring because you don’t like the way people use their free speech in response to yours. And your free speech doesn’t matter more just because you’re afraid of a mean label.
What do you think of government censorship?
Government censorship is wrong. Both extreme left and extreme right movements all over the world used government censorship as a way to control people. They burned books and put people in prison for disagreeing with the state. It’s absolutely disgusting. There should never be a list of words that get you in jail. You should never be persecuted for what you think – as long as you don’t act on it or you aren’t at risk of acting on it.
However, if the government wasn’t allowed to pay attention to you if they thought (based on what you were saying) that you were going to do something dangerous, then there would be a lot more terrorist activity and mass shootings out there. There are government agencies that watch out for extremist groups in my country, for example, and stop the extremists from carrying out terrorist attacks or indoctrinating children/young people. That’s because it’s more than just the speech here. It’s also to do with the actions that come with and are associated with the speech.
So there should be no single word banned. We should be paying much more attention to intentions and whether actions will come with those words, not the actual words people use. We shouldn’t censor people. We should let them say what they want to say and make assessments from there as to whether they’re going to do anything that would endanger the country.
What do you think of company censorship?
This is where I end up disagreeing with a lot of my right and centre-leaning friends: company censorship is okay.
Hear me out.
As the owner of this forum, I pay for it. It’s my reputation on the line more than anyone else’s if I start letting people scream racist things or threaten each other. So if I’ve invested my money, my time and my love to make this place and it’s my private property, then I should be allowed to choose what happens here. I should be able to choose what the reputation of my forum is.
It’s the same with physical property. Say someone was saying racist things and I said “not in my house”, I’m not stopping them from saying racist things. I’m just telling them to find somewhere else to go and do it. They can go and shout those racist things out on the street for all I care. Just as long as my private property is safe – and my reputation along with it.
In other words, we’re all entitled to free speech in the West, but not a platform. My forum is a platform. So is YouTube. That’s why we have guidelines. And with YouTube, it’s even more official than on here. You signed an agreement with them. You said you agree to the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions involve what you can and cannot say. If you break those, they’re in their legal right to take their platform away from you. It’s their company. It’s not yours.
And again, free speech is not freedom from consequences. So if a company doesn’t want to be associated with you after you say something, that’s their business. If Disney drops your contract because you said something seeminly anti-semitic, that’s their business. They have a reputation that they want to uphold. The reputation wasn’t great to do with Jews in the past and they want to protect what little credibility they’ve regained on that front. They’re not forcing you not to say anti-semitic things. They’re saying that they don’t want to be associated with you if you do. That’s fair enough.
Even if it’s other people and the media pressuring the company. The company wouldn’t allow themselves to be pressured if they didn’t care about their reputation. Every single journalist has the free speech to criticise the actions of individuals and companies. If the individuals/companies want to change to be in line with what the media says, that’s their business.
If far-right people are lacking a place to take out their far-right views, they should make their own platform. Their own private property. They should not care what the media or the public says. Then they can talk about what they want to talk about freely. The only exception being when they’ve clearly indicated that they’re a risk to others. The internet isn’t a private property, so you just need to go and find your corner of it.
What about self-censorship?
Self-censorship is your business and has nothing to do with free speech laws. As long as you’re not being persecuted by the government for saying what you want to say, someone calling you disgusting or writing an article in the newspaper isn’t stopping you from speaking out. You’re just being a sensible human being and choosing between saying what you’re thinking and being free of the consequences that will happen as a result.
It’s your choice to censor yourself. No one else’s. So do you expect the law to force you to say those things? Or do you expect the law to shut up other people and deny them of their freedom of speech just so you can talk? What makes you so special then?
It’s like that petition to remove social justice courses because those courses are silencing people with right-wing views. So you want to silence left-wing people so you don’t have to be silenced? Bull.
So please, please don’t whine that you can’t say what you want to say because people will say mean things about you. Boohoo. You’re being a hypocrite.
Do you agree that language can sometimes be dangerous?
Do I think that there are words out there that could be dangerous? No. Unless you’re a Russian sleeper agent and the word will set you off. But that’s not my fault for using it!
Do I think that using your words in certain ways could be dangerous in certain circumstances? Well, yes and no. You could say something that would cause someone with mental health problems to hurt themselves, for example. But you’re not saying anything dangerous, exactly. You’re just triggering a dangerous issue in someone else. You’re contributing to a pre-existing issue. You aren’t the danger. You’re just an irritant to a pre-existing danger.
What about saying apologistic things that suggest victims of crimes are responsible for what happened to them? Well, it’s more the attitude that is dangerous than the actual words. It’s the actions associated with those words that hold the danger. It’s not dangerous to say that women should dress in less revealing clothes if they don’t want to be assaulted. However, if you’re saying that, it’s likely that you believe it. If you believe it, you might act in a way that puts those women in danger. Then there’s the risk of convincing someone else.
Say you’re a police officer. If you simply think that a woman should have worn more clothes, you’re not harming anyone. If you tell her that, you’re a bad person who needs to see some consequences, but you’re not a danger to anyone. If she hadn’t been the victim of a crime, those words would have no situation to exacerbate. However, if you believe that statement and no one challenges it, it could lead you to avoid arresting the assaulter. In that case, what you said has turned into something dangerous that you did: let a criminal go free.
And if you go home and tell your child that people who wear revealing clothes are to blame for their own assault, your child might start to believe it. Then they might do something dangerous, too: they might not come forward if they get assaulted because they’d feel like it’s their fault.
So the words aren’t dangerous. However, they can sew the seeds for dangerous things to come in the future if left unchallenged. That’s why it’s so important that we don’t mistake freedom of speech for freedom of consequence. If there was no consequence, the child could go on believing they’re to blame. If there is a consequence (the parent is called out for their toxicity and blasted), then the child has the hope that they might not believe what was said.
Language can be a great indicator that something dangerous has happened or is going to happen. However, the language itself is not dangerous. Plus, context matters.
When do you think the authorities should get involved with threats and dangerous manifestos?
When it becomes clear that the language is more than language. When the individual has made it clear that they wish to act on these thoughts. In an ideal world, I wish we could lock up anyone advocating for violence against whole groups of people, but that’s not fair. There arre plenty of people who don’t mean it or don’t want to act on those thoughts. They should be left alone to say their disgusting things – or criticised by the people around them.
But when it becomes a real possibility that someone might do something, yes. I feel like this is the only time that the authorities should get involved. This involves threats online and all of those incel manifestos. If we believe that there are actions behind those words, we persecute for the actions. Context matters.
Damn that was long! I might hide it if you don’t want to scroll down so far, but please share your thoughts!
