March 27, 2023 at 2:19 p.m.
Hate speech, censorship and disinformation
In this "Brave New World" of deceit, division, propaganda and lies, disinformation is potentially destructive; yet, most would agree, hate speech (however it is perceived) is almost always worse. Realistically however, as with many things, the options to deal with it do not necessarily include absolute or full resolution. You either have some semblance of what might arguably be labeled as hate speech; or, the encroachment and consequences of a despotic and fanatic regulation of speech, to the point of broad-brush inclusion of any message stated or implied, that is upsetting, insulting, provocative or critical.
The latter creates an outcome that is largely seen as constitutionally taboo (1st Amend., Bill of Rights) and profoundly more detrimental to individuals and society. This rings true, in part because it creates, for legislative purposes, the need to precisely define without hope of real success, what hate speech is or is not, beyond where it has stood colloquially and statutorily over time. If that definition is crafted, however ineptly, it will likely be mandated and enforced by those who are the least satisfactory repository of societal authority to fairly regulate anything. This has been unexceptionally demonstrated by every totalitarian regime in the history of the world, over more than a century. They all, in part, rely or relied upon propaganda and hardline speech regulation as an imperative underpinning of achieving and maintaining one-party dictatorial power; doing so, under the guise of "protecting the people." Yet, in reality, it's the means to self-insulate, protect their own kind and crush the dissenters. Were that not true, open debate and intellectual prowess i.e., the sound assembly of logic, reason and evidence, would be their weapon of choice, to expose and dismantle their critics and adversaries. Their default response however, was and is, to reject or ignore the full and genuine facts as well as the debate, for what should be obvious reasons, in favor of derogatory labeling, censorship, threats and other stifling and punitive tactics. The point is to silence truthful, logical opposition and manipulate thought, so as to bolster and preserve their prevailing autocratic and deceptive agenda.
Do we now stop talking about anything potentially offensive or uncomfortable, to make sure no one is offended or objects? One's words, in any matter of consequence or even in humor, regardless of how objectively benign, will be offensive to someone if the number of recipients is large enough. Sometimes, as they say, "It only takes one to take exception"; just one in the group or perhaps one in a mass of 100 or more. If the goal is to expunge all risk of affront, discomfort, distress or offense through censorship and regulation, the inability to fairly define precisely what hate speech is, coupled with constitutional constraints, serve to suggest that we "leave it alone". As a fundamental matter, you can't legitimately outlaw what you can't fairly define. Choosing to stubbornly define it anyway, creates an even worse situation, likely to be enforced and weaponized by those least able to properly regulate themselves, a factor counterintuitively fueled by politicized advocacy journalism, masquerading as objective reporting.
Let multiple ideas be heard and flourish in the public and private domain on an ongoing basis and look to individuals and the collective to decide whether an idea is to them, acceptable or not. Most of the time the outcome is guided by a "communitarian ethos" well able to discern what's right, thus identify and defy hateful or dis-informative ideas that may cause anxiety, discomfort or even danger; without the imposition of mandates for censorship, beyond the generic restrictions or laws that already exist. The right to free speech grants the reader or listener, whatever the utterance, a pathway to freeze it, evaluate it, reject the thought and source; or, accept, embrace and advocate for it, rather than force the silence of either side. Notwithstanding, there are some forms of speech that run so profoundly afoul of societal acceptability, (hate-based or not) that fair and reasonable minds demand some form of restriction, including but not limited to those associated with false fire alarms, overt specific threats of death or other physical violence; and, open display of child porn. These limited forms of regulation appear to invite little risk of transforming into a contrivance, undertaken so as to punish any word or deed that the power brokers don't like. One such misguided strategy is to deliberately conflate speech and violence, which reveals itself when one group engages in clear-cut politically motivated violence that they themselves (and certain media) conveniently characterize as "speech"; yet, when the contrasting group engages in conduct limited to opposition speech, it's declared to be "violence"; a phony excuse for condemnation and physical retaliation against speech, under the veil of justifiable self-defense.
Flexible, arbitrary or abusive interpretation is illustrative of just one aspect of the difficulty in a quest to precisely but fairly define hateful speech. Further complicating the case is having to look toward equitable, unbiased and legitimate enforcement, which may or may not be achieved; or never intended by authoritarian censorship advocates holding bureaucratic or legislative power and dedicated to fortifying the stance of their political apparatus.
Being fully aware of the constitutional and legislative obstacles to open censorship, government forces have adopted "the ends justify the means" type approach, to circumvent the law prohibiting state censorship, according to multiple witnesses in congressional testimony. While rhetorically framing the opposition as "an existential threat to democracy", the same government actors have turned to a clandestine and fascistic "Mussolini style" merger of government might and corporate power, to form an "ideological cartel", with like-minded Big Tech media operators, censoring for them under the auspices of private entity privilege. Despite the "whistleblowers", both control forces appear to operate on the assumption that their repeated denial of collusion in plain sight, will likely block the public effort to stop them. A debasing alliance of this nature may or may not survive the congressional scrutiny now underway.
Ordinarily, if speech results in one being offended or simply duped, the best solution is daylight over darkness: more ideas and speech, not less; and, the choice of open challenge versus advocacy, neutrality or voluntary acceptance. The best test for assessing the propriety of censorship over speech, is to imagine the consequences of your own similarly situated but opposing speech (objective or not) being forcibly silenced by adversaries who resist you or disagree. The outcome of that assessment is invariably the same on either side: a unanimous belief in the presumptive right to be heard over the truly hateful and oppressive imposition of silence through genuine fear, force or phobia.
Bud Corbett
Rhinelander
Comments:
You must login to comment.