free speech – who can we safely deplatform?
You threaten that equality by trying to manipulate who I may and may not hear in public debate. (Tildeb)
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what free speech can mean in human society. Is it the right to express what you want without censorship or restraint, or is it the right to a public platform because you have ‘news-worthy’ views?
I’ve been engaged in some form of discussion (not very productive) with Tildeb over on his blog around this issue. I argue that in many cases it’s not sensible to provide a platform for people who promote hateful or discriminatory viewpoints. Tildeb argues that this makes me dangerous and a threat to shared freedoms.
As Tildeb doesn’t want to answer my questions, I thought I’d put one out to Blogland. Are there any views so discriminatory you would support rescinding speaking invitations already issued? Or is it true that there is a ‘free speech’ principle which means everything should always be debated in public?
Because I have a pretty low opinion of human beings. I think we’re still largely driven by fear and basic herding instincts. I think we all to often resort to discrimination and violence to make ourselves feel stronger and in control. I think it’s all too easy to manipulate large groups of people using fear to do illogical and harmful things. In contrast, I think Tildeb has a high opinion of human beings: logical, educated, intelligent creatures who can skillfully evaluate information presented to us and come to ‘correct’ conclusions.
But I’m not suggesting that I personally decide if someone is ‘safe enough’ or ‘too dangerous’ to be given prominent public speaking platforms. I’m suggesting that those making decisions look at the context for calls to deplatform controversial figures and allow community members to have a voice and a choice about who is conferred with the honour (and resulting prestige) of speaking engagements in their area.
LikeLike
You want to be deplatformed? We’d have to find you a speaking invitation first, which might prove tricky. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I suppose this looked like trolling. I really didn’t mean it that way. I was jist funnin ya Violet.
LikeLike
You’re such a funster! Apart from the bit where we’re all doomed-to-eternal-torment evil-doers. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
…we’re all doomed-to-eternal-torment…
Doesn’t have to be that way Violet.
LikeLike
Yet, according to your own Torture Porn book, the Lord knew from the beginning of time who He would “save”. So yes, for us doubters, it did have to be that way. Free Will is incoherent in the context of an omniscient God. I will avoid using foul language in this comment, but I am tempted.
(Sorry Violet….the smugness in the 1:41 comment just got to me)
LikeLike
Freedom of speech for me is something that we have a duty to use responsibly and carefully. Giving a platform to those who would use it to spread anger and hate is not responsible.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree, and yet, apart from Pink, you’re the only person I’ve seen articulate this. John Zande is sitting on fence as ever, making little quips. I’m also wondering if there is a separation along ‘group’ lines. I could be wrong, but it looks like the white, male, straight, cis people are more concerned about their privilege to hold court being restricted, while anyone with experience of being female, gay etc is concerned about hate speech further restricting their freedoms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Common sense must prevail.
LikeLike
Those that believe they have the most, have the least. Who decides? It was common sense that elected trump. We need rationalists
LikeLiked by 1 person
Common sense rationalists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are 15 scientists running for offices next week. We’ll see if common sense will elect rationalism. I’m not holding my breath. That would be irrational.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many scientists are not very rational in other aspects of their lives or beliefs. Science will not save us, I fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe you in some respects. It wouldn’t hurt to try something quite different, but most everyone is locked in to two outcomes.
LikeLike
Go on, say something more meaningful, I dare you! Whose side are you on? Did all the attention Bolsonaro got for his extreme views help common sense prevail?
LikeLike
I didn’t say “will” prevail, I said “must” prevail. I must do my homework doesn’t mean I will do my homework.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure I understand Tildeb’s argument. It seems disjointed, which is odd considering just how on-the-money he is with everything else.
You going to get another shot at a Brexit referendum?
LikeLike
His last comment on his post almost made sense. I understand his concerns, I just think they are a bit two-dimensional with a big dash of wishful thinking about human behaviour. Of course there won’t be a Brexit referendum. We on the conveyor belt to doom being thrown hope scraps.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is the Brexit issue relevant to this argument? Is someone’s right to express opinions being forcibly violated?
LikeLike
Nope. John was making small talk, I answered his question.
LikeLike
I think the same tactics were used by Brexit that relies on populism and to the same effect.
Have you noticed who and what political party unanimously supported deplatforming Bannon, using the same arguments you used? Yup, the far Left.
LikeLike
I guess you have a point in that ‘news-worthy’ marginals with kooky views were given disproportionate coverage, or speaking platforms, which they used to lie and mislead and sound-bite their way to victory.
LikeLike
This is a bit of a hard one to get into the middle of. You mentioned history. The heretics must not be silenced nor restricted from free speech. Societies have been wrong about who the crazies are several times. A public forum will weed out the bad seed by consensus, then they can go do their underground Alex jones thing. It take a a while to sort it all out sometimes, but to go down the road of authoritarian restriction by a few dissatisfied people is dangerous.
People are just too damn hard headed on one hand, and overly sensitive on the other. Like using “blackface” to describe a Halloween mask gets someone fired. Ridiculous where we come to. I have to side with Tildeb today, although I don’t like it. I have to trust the public in the end to falsify the idiots. Politically, generally we get what we deserve as a whole, and that’s the pisser about living in society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But is that fair comparison? Heretics who were burned at the stake versus people having speaking invitations withdrawn? As I said to Tildeb, Bannon had his own media outlet, he can publish a book, he can afford to hire venues and sell tickets himself. The question is, should societies and communities invite people (bestowing honour and status on them) and provide a platform for them when they have been responsible for things like publicising homophobic messages? If so, where is the line? Should we still be inviting Holocaust deniers to present their case for good, old-fashioned, honest debate? I’d like to think we could and opinions would be changed, but we all know the sad reality – mistruths, soundbites and fear-mongering all go a long way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heretics weren’t just burned at the stake, but their ideas were silenced, quarantined, in many cases, all over a belief or idea that didn’t even originate in their own mind. And some of those ideas were good ideas. Is it worth a little hatred to enlighten a species about the need for love? I would have to argue that for now, hatred is an overall benefit to our species. Just as religion was once a benefit to survival, hate must be as well. As much as you hate everything about Bannon (as do I) you’ve proven my point. Btw, there is less and less hate through the generations) The new kids coming through will make that final decision though.
LikeLike
I don’t hate Bannon. I’m not in the USA and actually know very little about him. My point is that rescinding speaking invitations in certain situations isn’t contrary to free speech – it’s just prudently not providing a megaphone for hateful/harmful messages.
I hope you’re right about the next generation. I see encouraging signs. But I also see a lot of neglect and immersion in mindless screen-based entertainment. I wonder what effect that will have.
LikeLike
I read up on the screen based entertainment a week or so ago. Although concerns about well rounded education are prevalent (still), the consensus (sort of) is it’s another passing fad and not to worry. I see it in my home too. The older kids love the games, the little ones are looking for something newer—less millennial. We spend a lot of time out on the mountain, and as long as I keep that tradition I think they’ll be fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s just prudently not providing a megaphone for hateful/harmful messages
In other words, common sense.
Fence sitting, my ass. Nail, hammer, head.
LikeLike
I put little digs in other comments to see if you’re still skimming about. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Santa says you’re not getting any Christmas presents this year.
LikeLike
Holocaust deniers? For all I know they may have a point. Let ’em make it, publicly—and if anyone can, shoot it down.
Let people reveal themselves for what they are, right across the board.
You want to deny the deniers their Right to say their piece?
Who’s the Nazi now, then?
One of the hallmarks of Stalin’s Communism was his cheery use of the Gulags—anyone trying to exercise the ‘right’ to Free Speech was swiftly moved out of earshot.
You want to let anyone say anything? Then you are in a very much minority and I salute you (before you get shipped off …)
LikeLike
I guess I have mixed thoughts on this…”liking” both violet and jim. I sympathize with tiledb quite often at Maka’s place, yet I see your point, too, violet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see your point, but…if we don’t let ’em talk, how are we gonna know who needs an ass-whuppin’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think this is the only justification for letting them speak, so they can get a good ass whipping
LikeLike
Very good. I know you have a much more complex opinion on this, and it’s probably worth reading.
LikeLike
It took WWII just to produce the faintest stirring that fascism – the idea that devotion to the nation-state is the only path to personal completion – might be a mistake.
War is the grandest stage, but an expensive one to set. Better to have it out on a smaller scale, because there is a lot more subterranean bullshit at work in human society.
We never seem to be shocked that we are repeatedly shocked by it.
I grew up in the South, and as a white boy with short hair, people made certain assumptions about my attitudes. Those assumptions let me in on the thoughts which underlie some otherwise curious statistics around minority employment, social status and political representation.
Bannon is just a clumsy Jeff Sessions, and less effective for it, because Sessions is a palatable example for a whole lot of others with similar, but unarticulated, attitudes.
Don’t take my word for it. Check out the SNL monologue from Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle in the aftermath of Trump’s election. The message is the same: Why are you people surprised? You really didn’t know this was under there?
And those are only semi-rhetorical questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s the link, definitely worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHG0ezLiVGc
You still don’t comment on whether it’s better to allow everyone a platform to speak or if it can be prudent to listen to complaints and rescind invitations.
LikeLike
Many of the arguments on this topic boil down to this:
Mr. Jones: “Daisy Martin, the master horticulturist, will be speaking at our garden club brunch.”
Mr. Smith: “Is that so? Well my friend Mr. Goebbels said that he would love to speak to your garden club.”
Mr. Jones: “I’m afraid that won’t be possible.”
Mr. Smith: “Why not? Are you biased against my friend?”
Mr. Jones: “No, but he is selling something and it has no educational value in terms of gardening.”
Mr Smith: ” Everything is politics and everyone is selling something – You are biased, and you are just trying to shut down Mr. Goebbels!”
If you are a garden club or a university, you ought to pick and choose your speakers, and you are completely justified in rejecting those who are merely distracting.
If you are a broadcaster, them internets, a public park – everybody should be allowed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If you are a broadcaster, them internets, a public park – everybody should be allowed.”
I’m not sure I agree with that completely, in that broadcasters are tending to promote extreme points of view just to get the hits – and it’s normalising them. Let them on the internet and public parks, but don’t splash them all over the news and give them endless talking invitations just because it gets a reaction.
LikeLike
The line is a smudge. I don’t think there is a remedy for that.
Some people will never be able to discern the difference between McNeil-Lehrer and F&F or The View.
In fact, some are quite motivated not to.
But there is still a difference for anyone with eyes to see.
LikeLike
Hi Violet. First of all it’s great to see your blog pop up on my feed after a long break. You’ve come back with a doozy of a topic. I wrote a blog a couple of months ago pondering the very same question, perhaps you’d like to take a look. https://cloakunfurled.com/2018/09/05/some-thoughts-on-free-speech/
I think that somewhere in between tildeb and yourself is probably the right answer. In general I think it’s hard to say whether deplatorming is okay or not okay in general. I prefer to look at it on a case by case basis. Perhaps more fundamentally the question to ask is does giving a platform to people with bad ideas enhance division in society or diminish it? In a society where people have so many platforms to send their message, I think that when we don’t let somebody talk who was invited to talk we do run the risk of saying that this person has a message that we don’t know how to defend against. For those who are on the fence about what to think about someone with a dangerous method, I do think we defeat are aims for a better society by letting people think we were too afraid of letting someone speak…not because their ideas were bad, but because they were too good to defeat through exposure. I tend to think that bad ideas fester in the dark and exposing them is the best antidote.
However, I also think it matters how we let that person speak. In the case of Steve Bannon and the New Yorker, I absolutely think that it was in general a bad move to dis-invite him. It’s not just because Bannon is newsworthy, but rather it’s because in addition to his many bad ideas he has had a huge influence on a portion of American society and understanding him is key to understanding how to defeat what he has to say. He was also being interviewed by a hard-hitting journalist at that event who wouldn’t have treated him with kid gloves. At universities I think that any speaker they invite whose views many find distasteful should always be only allowed to speak in a debate or panel format for which other points of view are always present along side theirs. And I think there should be definitely a good Q&A session afterwards. Speakers like Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald are two figures that come to mind that should not be deplatformed. Those of us, even if we are missing something important, but who are making an honest attempt at scholarship, and publishing work in peer-reviewed journals need to be debated honestly and in good faith. If it is indeed biased or falsified scholarship it certainly needs to be exposed, because bad scholarship in the hands of those who have more persuasive and violent personalities are dangerous. I am less upset by the deplatforming of blowhards like Milo Yiannopoulis or Ann Coulter, but at least at university campuses could be at least forced to debate with academic professionals with actual expertise in the areas these provocateurs claim to know something about.
But I do think some people are overreacting a bit to this deplatforming issues. I don’t see it as the free speech being in trouble. I think when someone simply has views without substance and are actually just looking for more platforms to provoke emotional responses from people, I don’t think we have to be all that tolerable to them, and in the case of speech that preaches hate or incites violence I don’t think it’s wrong to limit the ways that they can reach people. If we’ve made any progress on issues like racism, gender, or gay rights (and I believe we’ve had) we’ve done so on the basis that free speech allowed us to challenge bad ideas, so I do think it’s fundamentally important to have that right…I’m not sure that disinviting guests constitutes a worry that we will lose our first amendment rights. A group of people smaller than those who have protested speakers make a decision about what is bad science and good science to be published in a peer-review journal. Nobody thinks someone who hasn’t done their research properly is having their free speech chilled because of that. Some people just have really bad ideas that have no substance…I think it’s a good when a society recognizes that and just wants to shut that person the hell up because they offer nothing of value or nothing new. I mean someone wanting to tell gay people they are going to hell and that they are immoral is just fundamentally incorrect on every level, regardless of whether they believe it. I see no value in such words being public. As I said before though, the question we have to ask…if they can make a big meal out of their being silenced is that going to give their ideas more bite or less bite. I worry that the former is true.
We also have to take into account practical matters. If the New Yorker, for instance, makes a good deal of money from this event and allows them to continue to produce a quality magazine with good journalism, pressure from enough people that might indicate a loss of money meaning in the long arc less quality journalism is being published because their magazine fails means that you have to choose your battles sometimes. Sometimes it’s just a business decision. That’s the reality of the kind of society we live in.
So while I think it’s frustrating that people full of bullshit keep rising in popularity, I think we have to be vigilant and keep fighting them publicly with better ideas. I think we can be smarter about how we let people speak over disinviting them. But I don’t think that worries of free speech being abolished or warranted.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s not just because Bannon is newsworthy, but rather it’s because in addition to his many bad ideas he has had a huge influence on a portion of American society…
You really think so? He had a breakfast/presentation this last week and 12 people showed up… and that’s with the Free food
LikeLike
I mean he was one of the main strategists that won Trump an election, he was founding member and the editor of Breitbart that has a lot of readers, and he was senior counselor to the president of the U.S. I mean people with less resumes have been interviewed by the New Yorker.
I also I’m not sure which presentation you are referring to. I did see that 3 days ago 12 protesters were arrested at a debate between Bannon and David Frum that had 2700 people in attendance. And that wasn’t even in the U.S., but in Toronto.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was at a Holiday Inn in North Topeka, and sorry, it was 17, not 12.
https://www.thepitchkc.com/news/blog/21029837/steve-bannon-draws-crowd-of-tens-to-rally-for-steve-watkins-in-topeka
Absolutely, but is the Breitbart crowd really, truly, honesty the size worthy of shaping “national” dialogue? They take up a lot of oxygen, yes, but it’s a tiny segment. I mean Fox News’ daily audience is 3 million. That’s it, 3 million, yet by the attention they get you’d think it was 100 million.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That incident doesn’t necessarily represent the sum totality of how many people might come and see him. It could have been just poor advertising. It says in the article that the Watkins campaign didn’t have anything to do with the rally.
I also don’t know if we can take a number like 3 million as saying that this is all the people who watch it. It’s probably not the same 3 million every day. Some day are probably purely reading articles from their website. What we do know is that FOX is the most popular source of news 66 quarters running. That to me a frightening statistic.
Breitbart gets just over half the viewership of Huffington post, and Bannon also prominently figured in the last presidential election. Again, nobody would suggest deplatforming Ariana Huffington and I don’t see much difference in either of them other than one represents views I more often agree with. Again, I don’t think Bannon’s resume is less than many people who have been interviewed by the New Yorker.
LikeLike
most popular source of news… Cable News, and it’s a captured audience. CNN/MSNBC have to split the viewership. The networks’ numbers (ABC/NBC etc), though, bury Fox.
I just think they’re awarded a non-representative influence in shaping debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a fair point, and of course I do think we have a liberal majority in this country, but I still think that completely ignoring views from the other side is to our detriment. And when you look at CNN and MSNBC combined it has approximately the same numbers of viewers as FOX (both prime time and day time) so that doesn’t by any means make FOX news irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not saying irrelevant, just punching way, way, way above their weight, having a bigger voice than they actually represent, and that in turn gives the Millers and Bannons of the world some sort of false “spokesperson” legitimacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can agree with that. But it doesn’t change the fact that I think there was a reason the New Yorker invited Bannon, he was going to be interviewed by a good journalist, and I think it was a mistake to cancel him at their event. I think it gives people who support Bannon and his views more cause to think competing messages are less legitimate. I think it would have been also reasonable to not have him be interviewed at all, but once the decision to do so was made, I thought what the New Yorker did made them look weak.
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t know much about the incident, but I think I agree. Turning someone into a martyr is stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something we haven’t touched upon here is how the importance of online hits is influencing choices that media and other organisations make. For instance, the Munk debates in Canada are probably quite pleased with the international attention they got from inviting Bannon to speak. This sense that coverage and attention at any cost raises profiles, brings in revenue, and is therefore ‘good’ is feeding the shock value of people simply looking for attention and/or power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Swarm says, “But I do think some people are overreacting a bit to this deplatforming issues. I don’t see it as the free speech being in trouble.” He concludes that “But I don’t think that worries of free speech being abolished or (sic) warranted.”
This sentiment is exactly wrong and why I am trying to explain how it is exactly backwards. It’s not straightforward or as simple as the specifics about WHO is saying what, and why that particular person is so deplorable that no one should pay attention… as if this was the central feature about calls to deplatform Bannon in the Munk debate. (By the way, Frum staunchly defends Bannon’s right to be invited to such an event to be debated.) And so the sentiment appears very reasonable to the specifics every time a new issue regrading speaking freely is raised… perhaps through firings for ‘insensitivity’, public shaming based on accusations, grovelling apologies if offence is claimed, speakers being deplatformed and disinvited, ongoing vilification of those who break the ideological group taboo and dare to criticize a protected group, not being politically correct enough, daring to use facts and evidence contrary to an ideological assertion about victimhood and oppression, professional and personal sanctions for not being sensitive enough and so on, encountering a new ‘tree’ each and every time, so to speak, and not addressing the larger issue of the free speech principle. The sentiment raised by Swarn is wrong because this is in fact the rising danger… not because a totalitarian government is on the brink of being elected and canceling free speech by edict but because people by and large are self censoring now, not attending now, not supporting the right of those with whom we may disagree now, cancelling subscriptions now, showing up and disrupting events now, being dismissive free speech for those with whom we disagree now. It is already of such common practice that individuals are curtailing their right to free speech willingly and right now in response to the totalitarian ideology of those who champion social justice through GroupThink and PC, those who stand ready to vilify those blasphemers with the handy labels of bigotry, racism, sexism, ever-ready group smears to be liberally applied as alt Right, fake news, alternative facts, deplorables, and so on. We self censor because of this toxic atmosphere in which we live and the ubiquitous punishments implemented all around us when some people dare to defy it. This anti free speech environment is the forest, and it is not being seen even though it’s in operation throughout the public domain and now moving into board rooms and institutions private and public.
Why does this matter?
Let’s back up a second:
Polling data indicated a massive Clinton landslide and exit polls gave assurance that these indicators during the last US presidential election were within statistical variation of high confidence. They were so wrong they weren’t even wrong. Now think. How can this be? How could all the polling (save a few dire warnings from ignored sources) be so wrong? The answer that I find cropping up time and time again with people who actually voted for Trump is that they lied to others to avoid being targeted by the smearing of the ‘woken’. They self censored… right up until they didn’t have to. And they were and remain very angry.
Look at James Demore from Google. He presents really good reasons using correct data to explain the equity hiring policy he was expected to implement would not produce the caliber of staff he needed to do the job he was hired to lead and correctly raised the issue that this policy was hampering the goal, that the policy was counterproductive in practice. He was fired not because what he said was factually wrong but because he said it.And he must be a terrible person for saying it. This ‘career path’ to self immolation professionally has been chosen by hundreds of good people who have been summarily fired for utilizing the principle of free speech. And I claim at least hundreds because I personally know dozens and dozens of professors who have told me that they fear for their jobs – even tenured professors! – if they speak out against a wide range of politically correct issues and policies to implement them. These teachers fear their students and fear what they might say to diversity officers… anonymously, of course, and without any evidence to back them up. So they keep their mouths shut. That’s the most insidious form of undermining free speech.
Welcome to the forest.
How has this truly deplorable state come about? I think it’s because not enough people are recognizing the forest, of stepping up and fighting back against this terrible ideology every time it raises its poisonous head, not enough criticism and sanction against those implementing these atrocious measures, the coddling of the invertebrates who go along with these policies and procedures because they themselves wish to avoid the vilification that accompanies standing up for free speech, when the particular tree targeted for attack by the invertebrates seems to be worth cutting down.. or at least pruning for the sake of the health and welfare of more disadvantaged trees.
Of what use is the principle of free speech if the practice is defined as intolerance, bigotry, and racism in action?
And I don’t think pointing out this toxic environment to the exercise of free speech is an overreaction at all. It barely begins to scratch the surface of just how far removed an entire generation is from protecting the fundamental principles now so imperiled by the wannabe heroes of today’s misguided and fascist social justice warriors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, and what is the necessary component for the rise of populism Bannon pointed out? Fear and anger. Guess what PC GroupThink produces in spades?
Hmm… boy , this is a tough one…. ah…. let’s see…. umm…
LikeLike
And some people just like to take some selected trees in the forest and call it the forest. Your cherry picking of arguments and events is impressive. When you get emotional about a subject please don’t think you are free from the myopic vision that you accuse everybody else of. And you’re not as open minded as you think you are when presented with any counter evidence and so there is no point spending any time debating with you.
The only thing more pleasurable than your angry rants is thinking about some vein or artery that surely must be close to exploding when you write them.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, yes, it’s all about emotions and ranting from me. Okay, fine.
Be that as it may, my point in contrast to your own is that I think there’s very strong evidence that this issue is, in fact, quite real, highly pernicious, growing, and threatening all of us and our shared rights and freedoms because I think this is the major engine to the rise of populism and one the Left needs to correct from its own ranks first before tackling it as the main opposition. Now, I think, is the time to confront it head on and without apologies because it’s already well past the public stage and being acted upon with self censorship. That canary is quite dead. I think this is not an inflated concern but a pressing one.
I addition, I see equivalencies here with the same kind of wide spread public sentiment in response to worrisome and anxiety producing economic and political issues so adroitly used by the National Socialists. Remember, National Socialism in Germany came from the Left, was supported by the Left, was brought into power by the Left using such tools as hate speech laws. Why doesn’t the use of similar tactics today from the Left raise more concerns from those of us on the Left? This is not how one fights the rise of populism and reestablishes liberal values of equality and respect and tolerance but adds fuel to its demise. That’s the baby in the bathwater you think should be thrown out because it’s being voiced here by me, a person our blog host has determined is deplorable person. Who is the one being emotional here, Swarn?
LikeLike
Nice quote: “this issue is, in fact, quite real, highly pernicious, growing, and threatening all of us and our shared rights and freedoms” to carry guns. Seems to be the same hysterical mindset refusing to listen to reason.
LikeLike
You really don’t believe the Nazis were primarily a “left wing” movement, tiledb? This is pretty…questionable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am always surprised when people don’t seem to see the origins of fascism and its Nazi cousin in the founding names: Fascista from Italy (from OED):
The English words fascism and fascist are borrowings from Italian fascismo and fascista, derivatives of fascio (plural fasci), “bundle, fasces, group.” Fascista was first used in 1914 to refer to members of a fascio, or political group. In 1919, fascista was applied to the black-shirted members of Benito Mussolini’s organization, the Fasci di combattimento (“combat groups”), who seized power in Italy in 1922. Playing on the word fascista, Mussolini’s party adopted the fasces, a bundle of rods with an ax among them, as a symbol of the Italian people united and obedient to the single authority of the state. The English word fascist was first used for members of Mussolini’s fascisti, but it has since been generalized to those of similar beliefs (has it?)
and Nazi from Germany:
National Socialist German Workers’ Party
I am well aware of how the Nazi party morphed into a totalitarian regime considered Right Wing but we do history a disservice by pretending it arose from ranks of the right wing. This is simply not true, although we love to teach kids that it came from those Nasty alt Right rich, bigoted, powerful, and racist Bad White Guys. I am also aware it was in response to international communism – and so attracted the moderate Left – and that many Western industries and governments (like General Motors and the US) supported this government and profited greatly from lucrative contracts. We find many historically important people throughout the West were in fact very sympathetic to the Nazis prior WWII (from Britain’s royal family to Henry Ford). This includes many who would have been considered moderates from the Left by today’s standards.
So yes, I’m very serious that the political ground out of which the Nazi party rose was rooted in the Left and it gained political capital with the moderate population… by advocating social policies and social goals through socially popular legislation… like vilifying certain groups because they were portrayed as enemies of the ‘correct’ ideology that would propel Germany into reaching its national destiny… groups like the Jews, the Roma, the mentally and physically disabled (because eugenics was widely endorsed assuming offspring were like infected crops from diseased parents), and so on.
This is why Orwell, who saw the similarities between all totalitarian governments Left and Right were the same thing in action, correctly identified the shared ideology about groups to be the central cause. I mean, read 1984. This is what we see rising yet again, this belief that disparity is caused by group differences, and why the accurate term for such people who promote the group-based ideology and group-based responses to inequity between them is fascists. And that’s why it’s so fricken dangerous because it’s so seductive.
LikeLike
What is considered left to what varies between countries and timeline. The US Democratic party is a fairly moderate right-wing party in North-European terms. The NSDAP had the word Socialist in it’s name, wich is why Hitler was planted into it by conservative officers in the German army. When he took over the party, it had very little to do with socialism. Henry Ford was a capitalist, who promoted the German Nazi party by granting them substantial money, not because he was a socialist, or because he thought they were, but precisely because he thought such right-wing parties as the Nazies were the way to stop socialism.
The italian Fascist party and the Nazies in Germany were really never left-wing and their prime enemies were from the very beginning Communists and Social Democrats, whom they persecuted, imprisoned and murdered right after having siezed power. In addition, it should be remembered, that they promoted the capitalists throughout their reign, provided slave labour to them and like both of the right wing parties (Republicans & Democrats alike) in the US today, were in bed with the military industry, because that is “patriotic”.
It is historically correct, as Tildeb points out, to remeber, that these ultra conservative, ultra right-wing parties sold their agenda by social programs borrowed from socialists, but with a sting of populistic methods, not unlike the ultra-right wing parties and populist movements today in Russia, rest of Europe and in the US. However, there is little doubt wether they were politically left or righ when you look at shared values, like for example racism.
There is this rather silly misequation going about in the revisionist history of the internet and social media, that the worst right-wing totalian governments, like the Fascisti in Italy or the Nazies in Germany were politically left-wing, not much differnt from the equally silly notion, that totalitarianism is the product of atheism. It totally ignores the fact, that there have been plenty of totalitarian governments produced by both left- and right-wing political leaders. Just as there have been plenty of totalitarian governments both with atheist and religious morals. I have even heard claimed, that Hitler was an atheist. He was all too eager to claim, to have communed with his god and in his (conservatively motivated) political program the protection of both German Christian churches was of great importance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it’s quite important to understand that widespread support for the fascist and Nazi regimes came from the political moderates under the popular banner of national versus the inter national aspect of communism. In this frame, the moderates were liberal vs the communists (form the Latin communis, meaning common). This national aspect was a major draw from what we would call the liberal political spectrum to a populist government under Hitler. And it’s this populist aspect (and policies that cause and empower a populist backlash) that I think is not understood very well by today’s liberals who assume undermining liberalism is how better socialist policies for everyone (that is to say, common) come about. I think this is a very great danger hiding in plain sight that enables the rise of populist strongmen and does so by getting rid of liberal principles that protect the individual in law from such top down authority by means of popular consent.
LikeLike
In general, it seems to me, that the free speech became an issue to all sorts of conservatives, fascists, racists and misogynists, suddenly, when they realized, they no longer could decide who has the right to speak in the public arena.
Yet, Tideb is right, in that freedom of self expression is a rather fundamental value for any healthy society. However, as with any other rights, it is ethically only acceptable as long as it does not cause any actual harm and damage to others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are already laws against inciting to violence or producing imminent lawless action.
The issue about free speech is about the demand by many into determining on behalf of others what positions can be expressed ‘appropriately’ and by whom or, if found ‘inappropriate’ by these arbiters of the Word or deemed Blasphemers by the ideological guardians, which positions and spokespeople are deemed verboten. And then, if the position is going to be made publicly available in some venue, then counter action – including real violence and real harm done to real people – is justified by falsely equating the forbidden words to be a kind of violence in themselves, a kind of harm in themselves which will be inflicted on some harmed group through their ears. Again, the abuse of language to invert meaning and produce the opposite effects is the harbinger of this ideological rot in action.
LikeLike
Yes, there are laws. In Germany for example they have a law that specifically forbids Nazism, it’s symbols and rhetoric. Even that law has not managed to stop similar right-wing populist movements, such as the PEGIDA from spreading, even though it shares much of the nationalist and down right racist ideals with the nazies. There is no doubt wether hate speech has a direct causality to violence. Hitler never killed anybody personally and rarely even subscribed documents to murder anybody. Yet, we do not doubt wether his skills of speech at appealing to the lowest emotions of people caused terrible havoc. Much more havoc and harm, than any single person has ever caused with a gun.
I agree with you, that bad ideas should always be confronted with better and more appealing ideas. That means there should be a discussion, between the ideas, rather, than that the bad ideas get momentum from public platforms, such as universities and such. And there are a lot of bad ideas. It is a time consuming effort to meet them all with facts, because usually the people with bad ideas do not bother to spend time to deal with facts, so they have more time to make up stuff.
The question here is who deserves to get a platform for their ideas and by whom. Should universities for example start to have conservative Islamist mullahs to spread their hatred in the name of free speech? What about the KKK, or some other similar right-wing extremist group? What about Stalinist groups, such as those extreme conservatives in Russia? Should we as a society not deplatform them? If we can deplatform extremist Islamists, should we not treat our own hatemongers by the same standard?
Should there be some standards, by wich we measure who deserves the public platform? What should they be?
LikeLike
It may sound trite, but yes, the standard should be to uphold liberal values, meaning at the very least liberty and equality. It’s not difficult to establish this level playing field on the condition that everyone follows the same rules. Advocating ideas – using the justification of individual liberty and equality – contrary to liberty and equality can and should be censored. There;s no conflict here in such a policy.
LikeLike
Exactly Raut, as ever!
LikeLike
Thanks. What do you think should be the standards by wich we as a society would have the ethical right to “deplatform” a person?
LikeLike
I was hoping someone here would come up with a suggestion. Some sort of standardised risk assessment matrix for the anal administrators. Analyse what the person has said in the past and evaluate the risks to individuals and groups objecting. I’ll have a think about it … 🙂
LikeLike
But that’s not up to you to decide, VW; that’s up to the organizations that invite speakers. Just like churches are welcome to invite creationist to speak about origins and I should not have the right to demand these folk can’t do that just because I think it’s immoral to advocate anti-scientism.
LikeLike
The oft forgotten and crucial aspect of Freedom, irrespective of what, is the Freedom to take responsibility. This underscores every other ”freedom”.
In this day and age one would think that people would have enough sense to stop and consider what the effects might be if , for instance , Intelligent Design was allowed to be taught in schools.
This is definitely a form of Freedom of Speech and who among us (here) would welcome this being taught alongside Evolution?
Who is prepared to accept the responsibility of potentially having a significant number of kids coming home and announcing that Evolution is hocus pocus?
My godson did just this the other week!
So, as John Z says – common sense must prevail.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Would have liked to be a fly in the wall for that one ….
LikeLike
I was cautioned by The Boss to be quiet and simply nod from time to time. I did recommend however, that if he wished to have ”this discussion” he must go home and read the bible – ALL of it. I am still waiting for confirmation that he’s done so.
Once he’s done that – if he does – I’ll ask how many bunny rabbit fossils have been found in the Cambrian era. 😉
Nice to read if not hear your dulcet tones as always,
Kids okay?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The BBC should not give a platform to liars and deceivers. There is no value in climate science denial. Genuine climate sceptics willing to debate actual scientific evidence might be welcome, but Lawson the Liar should not be.
Scientists should not debate creationists, the level of stupid is just too great. Possibly there is value in Christians putting a Biblical Christian case against creationism.
The PM programme on Radio 4 interviewed a Canadian weirdo who wanted to plug Steven Yaxley-Lennon’s vile campaign of self-aggrandisement and hatred of Muslims. Eddie Mair’s distaste for the man was clear, but the man just got a chance to say ridiculous slurs at anyone criticising Yaxley, and ridiculous praise. So anyone insulated from reality by a carapace of lies should not be on reputable platforms, broadcasts, or websites. Tell the truth! That people deny the truth is trivial and uninteresting. The truth on the climate and Yaxley is clear.
LikeLike
The BBC is verging on awful. I’m now at the point where I understand why people are refusing to pay the fee, but still feel there is value in public broadcasting I’d hate to lose. I just wish they wouldn’t respond to the same clickbait tactics of media organisations with a need for advertising. They could so draw more relevant lines, but they are almost the worst at it.
LikeLike
Thought I’d comment before looking at the other comments. (Ergo untainted?)
‘Free speech’ isn’t.
Too many have died trying to preserve it—Free Speech is actually extremely expensive.
So with this in mind … anyone should be allowed by Law to say anything at all anywhere that he or she wishes. Anything, qua ANYthing.
It’s up to other speakers using their own brand of reasoning—with no force or threat—to counter those points if they desire (and if they can).
Any takers?
LikeLike
Woof!
LikeLike
We should protect Freedom of Speech, even if the speech is expressing viewpoints we may find absolutely vile. What this means in practice is that for the most part a person shouldn’t be arrested by the government if they express an idea that others dislike or find vile. Sometimes what gets lost here is that freedom of speech works both ways. I also have the right to tell that person I find their viewpoints absolutely deplorable (hopefully with reasons explaining why) or also to express the idea that a particular speaker shouldn’t have been invited in the first place. That, too, is technically an extension of freedom of speech.
The real question is about the right to a platform. Nobody has any special right to any particular platform. Oh, there is of course freedom of assembly, but not necessarily the right to any platform you might want. You have a right to say what you want, but you don’t necessarily have a right to say what you want whenever you want at any place you want. For example, without an invitation I don’t have a right to give a speech at Harvard University. It’s a private university. Since we don’t have an automatic right to any possible venue, we also don’t automatically need to give certain viewpoints access to every possible venue. However, that, too, should be the decision of the particular venue at the end of the day.
On the other hand, I would tend to lean towards NOT deplatforming once somebody has been given the green light to participate in a debate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicely put. Although I’d say that individuals within organisations make bad decisions simply for the ‘glory’ point in their career: a controversial invitation to make headlines and feel important. And while deplatforming can be counterproductive, I think it’s important to listen to concerns from the community rather than doggedly sticking to bad decisions. Maybe all this hoo-ha around deplatforming should be a wake up call about how organisations consult with their members and their community before issuing invitations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only problem is that communities are large and often consist of a lot different sub-communities, with many different viewpoints. It’s easy to ignore the concerns of minorities, while it’s also easy in some instances for “large” minority groups with extreme views to take over a conversation.
LikeLike
Do you have an example in mind?
LikeLike
Repeating myself: Pakistan. Rural India (where radical Hindutva followers have murdered Muslims accused of killing a cow) More fundamentalist parts of the United States. Some British Muslim neighborhoods. There are so many examples illustrating consoledreader’s point.
As I have noted at Maka’s place “community” and “the people” are very amorphous things and are not “an answer” to a political question.
Note that I still am sympathetic to an argument that hatemongers do not “earn” the right to prestigious venues. A college can deny a Milo or a Steven Miller or a League of the South speaker the right to a high visibility event sponsored by the college or institution?
LikeLike
Well, you mentioned those who make decisions in organizations should get input from their members, but what does one do when there’s diversity of viewpoints among the membership?
Suppose we were talking about a college campus. There are many different members who might have some extremely different ideas about what makes for a good speaker and an appropriate topic, what should be discussed and what should not be discussed. There are young republican groups and campus conservatives. There are Feminists who support trans-rights and feminists who don’t and see it as a violation of their own rights. There are those who support Israel and those who are against it. All of these people could be argued to be members of the college community. So which members do you listen to in terms of getting input about who to invite to campus for a debate or talk?
Now what if you’re talking about an entire town, city, or country. Well, it’s more of this at a larger scale. So it’s difficult to get everybody’s input and give everyone an equal balance in the weight of their input. At the same time, if we do majority rules in terms of input, then the concerns of minorities and their experiences can also get lost in the mix, and history suggests that often happens.
Likewise, sometimes small sub-groups like fundamentalists or other forms of extremism can take over an issue and the more moderate (but numerous middle) can be drowned out. In these instances, if there is another side arguing against the extreme group they can sometimes forget about the moderate middle who may have some very different ideas and their is an incorrect assumption that everyone is like the more extreme end. This happens all the time in discussions of religion, left-right political ideologies, atheism, feminism etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess I am skeptical about what exactly “the community” means in these cases. In Pakistan right now, “the community” has decided that some poor woman (and her lawyer) has to die for “insulting the Prophet”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Violet! Where have you been? The blogging world just isn’t as interesting without you on it!
LikeLike
How can someone be “on” the blogging world? Is it some kinda planet or something? I think you meant “in” there bub. Can we keep these things straight please? People are confused enough already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know I’m late to the party, but I’d like to add my two cents (US).
Rights to speech don’t invalidate other rights. I think this gets forgotten at times. People are not entitled to a platform. A right to speech doesn’t guarantee broadcast rights.
Venues can rescind offers to speak, so long as they’re not keeping money or breaking a contract. I don’t think this idea raises too many eyebrows. If you own a popular establishment, you also get to determine who goes to that establishment.
But what about buckling to social pressure? I think that’s probably the bigger issue you’re alluding to in your post. Those issues frequently are better determined by local societies rather than international crusades. The venue needs to do what is right by its owners and operators. Anything else is window-dressing.
If people engaging in Twitter campaigns is scary, then the world is a truly frightful place. There will always be a group of people irate and hurt in the butt over speech. This doesn’t belong to one political subgroup. Extremism travels broadly.
LikeLiked by 1 person