In which she opines on freedom of speech
Oct. 22nd, 2010 10:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zeborahFor the purposes of this post I shall focus on freedom of speech in the USA, whose First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [...]
People abiding in the United States are constitutionally protected from the specter of a law forcing them to say one thing or forbidding them to say another thing. They are likewise constitutionally protected from the specter of a law forcing the press to espouse some point of view or to suppress some other point of view.
This means that people abiding in the United States need never fear being arrested or prosecuted by the government for what they say or don't say, and this is a very good thing indeed. It also means that people can trust that US newspapers and TV stations aren't all just mouthpieces for the government (unless of course those newspapers and TV stations all individually choose to be, which seems unlikely) and this is also a very good thing.
Note however what this amendment doesn't say. It doesn't say that a press may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. (If it did say such a thing, that would be a law abridging freedom of the press, and it's just said that there shall be no such law.)
It doesn't say that a non-governmental organisation may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. It doesn't say that a person may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. (If it did say such a thing, that would be a law abridging freedom of speech.)
It doesn't say that a media channel may not fire someone who has said nasty things. It only says that Congress shall make no law that a media channel must, or contrariwise that it must not, fire such a person.
It doesn't say that a convention may not refuse to honour someone else who has said other nasty things. It only says that Congress shall make no law that a convention must, or contrariwise must not, refuse to honour them.
Even if you count "honouring someone" as a speech act or as enabling a speech act, which I think is stretching things rather a lot.
Because the fact that one person has freedom of speech does not mean that someone else is obliged to pay for or otherwise actively support that speech. It doesn't give anyone the right to demand a column in the newspaper, or a segment on Fox News, or a minute on the radio airwaves, or comment space on someone's blog, or a podium at Wiscon.
Wiscon/SF3's decision to disinvite Elizabeth Moon as Guest of Honour does not abridge her freedom of speech, even if you think that organisations as well as government bear some moral responsibility for upholding that freedom. She can still write books. She can write blog posts. She can call up talkback radio. She can chat with her friends in the coffeeshop. She can speak at any other convention that's willing to have her. She can even, I believe, attend Wiscon and speak with people there; she just won't be officially honoured for it.
So she can still say anything she wants to say, and she will never, in the USA, be arrested for it, because Congress shall make no law abridging her freedom of speech. She just has to find somewhere else to say it than Wiscon's Guest of Honour podium (nor will she find this hard).
And if anyone really thinks that everyone everywhere in the US has the moral obligation to uphold everyone else's freedom of speech by providing them a platform to speak on, then six weeks before Wiscon/SF3 made their decision you should have been protesting Elizabeth Moon's mass deletion of comments from her post. Wiscon/SF3 aren't the ones engaging in censorship here.
(Personally I think she not only has the legal right but also the moral right to censor and otherwise control what's said in her own space. That she chose to exercise this right in this way and this context, however... was not the most constructive way to show respect for the people involved, shall we say.
(--Incidentally, my own personal policy on censorship is that if someone posts a comment to my DW or LJ which I feel I cannot in good conscience allow to remain here - which will generally be because it's hurtful to some third party - then I'll delete it and, where possible, email the text back to them so they can repost it to their own blog if they so choose. People are free to speak, and I'm free to refuse to host that speech.)
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [...]
People abiding in the United States are constitutionally protected from the specter of a law forcing them to say one thing or forbidding them to say another thing. They are likewise constitutionally protected from the specter of a law forcing the press to espouse some point of view or to suppress some other point of view.
This means that people abiding in the United States need never fear being arrested or prosecuted by the government for what they say or don't say, and this is a very good thing indeed. It also means that people can trust that US newspapers and TV stations aren't all just mouthpieces for the government (unless of course those newspapers and TV stations all individually choose to be, which seems unlikely) and this is also a very good thing.
Note however what this amendment doesn't say. It doesn't say that a press may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. (If it did say such a thing, that would be a law abridging freedom of the press, and it's just said that there shall be no such law.)
It doesn't say that a non-governmental organisation may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. It doesn't say that a person may not espouse a point of view or suppress a point of view. (If it did say such a thing, that would be a law abridging freedom of speech.)
It doesn't say that a media channel may not fire someone who has said nasty things. It only says that Congress shall make no law that a media channel must, or contrariwise that it must not, fire such a person.
It doesn't say that a convention may not refuse to honour someone else who has said other nasty things. It only says that Congress shall make no law that a convention must, or contrariwise must not, refuse to honour them.
Even if you count "honouring someone" as a speech act or as enabling a speech act, which I think is stretching things rather a lot.
Because the fact that one person has freedom of speech does not mean that someone else is obliged to pay for or otherwise actively support that speech. It doesn't give anyone the right to demand a column in the newspaper, or a segment on Fox News, or a minute on the radio airwaves, or comment space on someone's blog, or a podium at Wiscon.
Wiscon/SF3's decision to disinvite Elizabeth Moon as Guest of Honour does not abridge her freedom of speech, even if you think that organisations as well as government bear some moral responsibility for upholding that freedom. She can still write books. She can write blog posts. She can call up talkback radio. She can chat with her friends in the coffeeshop. She can speak at any other convention that's willing to have her. She can even, I believe, attend Wiscon and speak with people there; she just won't be officially honoured for it.
So she can still say anything she wants to say, and she will never, in the USA, be arrested for it, because Congress shall make no law abridging her freedom of speech. She just has to find somewhere else to say it than Wiscon's Guest of Honour podium (nor will she find this hard).
And if anyone really thinks that everyone everywhere in the US has the moral obligation to uphold everyone else's freedom of speech by providing them a platform to speak on, then six weeks before Wiscon/SF3 made their decision you should have been protesting Elizabeth Moon's mass deletion of comments from her post. Wiscon/SF3 aren't the ones engaging in censorship here.
(Personally I think she not only has the legal right but also the moral right to censor and otherwise control what's said in her own space. That she chose to exercise this right in this way and this context, however... was not the most constructive way to show respect for the people involved, shall we say.
(--Incidentally, my own personal policy on censorship is that if someone posts a comment to my DW or LJ which I feel I cannot in good conscience allow to remain here - which will generally be because it's hurtful to some third party - then I'll delete it and, where possible, email the text back to them so they can repost it to their own blog if they so choose. People are free to speak, and I'm free to refuse to host that speech.)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 06:03 pm (UTC)On a purely personal level I fully understand not wanting to see 500, mostly critical comments in your space and feel compelled to react because you really cannot win.
(I am finding the whole situation difficult because I've known her online for fourteen years, and while I wholeheartedly condemn her post, many years of liking someone don't just vanish overnight. There are no etiquette books for dealing with such situations.)
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 07:49 pm (UTC)And I can very much understand her reaction, too, on an emotional level. (BTDT, though on a smaller scale.) It's just that on an intellectual level I find "you can't win" to be highly unpersuasive, because when you've said/done something so jerkish that you've got hundreds of people calling you on it, you're not supposed to be worried about "winning", you're supposed to be apologising. Disqualifying yourself from the race, as it were. And when you do, some people will forgive you and some people won't, but that's in the nature of an apology, that you give up control over how it's received by the people you've wronged -- I think that's part of what gives an apology its value.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 08:20 pm (UTC)In the last iteration, it was a case of _I hadn't see a problem at the time_, (or rather, I hadn't seen the blindingly obvious problem), so I understood a lot better where _that_ author was coming from (and it taught me to never ignore the cultural context of anything I do).
And I can very much understand her reaction, too, on an emotional level. (BTDT, though on a smaller scale.)
I had one poster show up who came very close to being banned. I'm sure she meant well, but she came across as obnoxious and combative, and I didn't want her in my living room.
that's in the nature of an apology, that you give up control over how it's received by the people you've wronged
That's a very mature way of looking at this - in a way, by saying something stupid and offensive you've crossed a threshhold.
I was hoping there would be a reflection post from her, but it's not forthcoming :-(
no subject
Date: 2010-10-23 11:16 pm (UTC)That's a very mature way of looking at this - in a way, by saying something stupid and offensive you've crossed a threshhold.
Yes, sort of that. Not an irreversible threshhold, just... not as easily reversible as one might wish, having crossed it. I think of it more as a pair of scales, actually - you've overweighted one side and need to put it in balance again, which requires making a certain sacrifice of control over things.
I think this way of thinking is influenced by a short book (or part of a book) I once read, about which I remember nothing except vaguely part of the content. It was talking about politeness as a way to keep status and "face" in balance.
For example, when you ask someone to do something for you, it implies that you have a right to expect them to be subordinate to you in this thing - this is particularly clear if it's phrased as a command, "Open the window." And if they accept that subordination, they lose face. So we hedge the request with making it a question, softening it -- "Sorry for bothering you, but would you mind opening the window, please?" at the most extreme -- so that they retain face.
But then of course by phrasing it as a request we've given them power to do it or not, so we've lost face ourselves. (And if they do it, we're a little in their debt, and if they refuse it's something of an affront -- either way, we lose face.) So then they hedge their reply with, "Oh, of course, no trouble at all," to give face back to us, and we give back, "Thank you!" and they give back, "You're welcome," until finally we can settle down all in balance again.
So in this framework, when you hurt someone, you're not just hurting them but making it clear that you have the power to hurt them. And if you don't apologise, you're making it clear that you have the power to hurt someone and not apologise - that you're too important and/or they're not important enough. And if you also erase their words you're making it clear that they don't even have the right to protest. It's a tremendous assertion of your own status / erasure of their face, and puts things commensurately out of balance.
(And if the context is one which is already about privilege vs oppression then of course this imbalance is magnified accordingly.)
--Of course this is just one model (and simplified from memory at that), so it doesn't take into account or explain everything; but I think it's one useful way of at least partially explaining why politeness is so important to people and communication.