Having drilled through layers of our rights and freedoms, the government has now reached the rock foundation of our human sovereignty and, by its proposed new legislation regarding free speech online, it is now seeking to gain dominion over our minds.
Under
the pretext of protecting us from harm, a new bill, perfidiously entitled ‘The
Online Harms Bill’, will hand authority to the State and its proxies to censure
our online communications and narrow, through ambiguity and confusion, the
already diminished field of permitted speech.
Far from protecting the legitimate rights of vulnerable individuals, the legislation will cause harm to our entire society.
Morality and Virtue
By imposing the subjective criteria of vexation or displeasure (in whatever amount and however sincerely felt) as the supreme principle of selecting values, the government is promoting a treacherous and untrustworthy standard and a rather dangerous world-view. Such a view will not encourage and cultivate virtue – it will seriously hamper it. Loving your fellow creature is an essential commandment, but for this love to count, it must be given freely and earnestly. The UK’s government proposed legislation, far from promoting genuine feelings of love and compassion, will make them less likely.
False
communications corrupt good manners and the best defence against being deceived
is for each of us to be on our guard, to test the information we receive, have
access to multiple sources and the ability to discern between alternatives.
Falsehood doesn’t necessarily originate from ordinary members of the public –
it can often bear the sanction of officialdom, avail itself of their power, and
be all the more dangerous for that.
As to politeness, this is undoubtedly a fine human quality which needs to be properly cultivated; however, imposing it at the cost of free speech is too high a price, if not wholly counterproductive. After all, Confucius himself was said to have learned politeness from the impolite. Improving morals and social behaviour requires persuasion; censorship for reasons that are not understood or felt as fair doesn’t produce any moral improvement, but only causes indignation or anger in those affected by it. “We are not conscripts in the army of virtue, but volunteers.”[5]
Speaking also for the ‘victims’, feeling offended is unpleasant, but is it always bad? “I shall be safer, if I am not mistaken, in saying that there are some pleasant things which are not good, and that there are some hurtful things which are good...”[6] Who can deny that there are many occasions when open contempt and ridicule can be beneficial to those who are their target. Man’s behaviour is regulated by social intercourse – the wider the better. “And so Antisthenes said well that those who wished to lead a good life ought to have genuine friends or red-hot enemies; for the former deterred you from what was wrong by reproof, the latter by abuse.”[7] Yes, disrespect can often act as therapeutic aid to those whose defects and follies it targets. Xenophon said that “a sensible man will receive profit even from his enemies.” Those who ‘hate’ and ‘offend’ can be relied upon to ‘pay more attention to our mistakes and our vices’. There is besides no need to shield people from ordinary criticism for, if unjustified, it can be answered and serve as edification to others, or, if justified, it can be ‘avenged’: “To the man who asked ‘How shall I avenge myself on my enemy’ Diogenes answered ‘By becoming a good and honest man’””
We should not forget about one of the most unsettling phenomena of this age: the rise of cant and the enrolment of fake emotion for nefarious (political) ends. Cant muddles and devalues genuine sympathetic feelings.”We are not the dupes of your canting mummers;/ There are false heroes and false devotees;/ And as true heroes never are the ones/ Who make much noise about their deeds of honour,”[8]
An abuse of mimicked values – values most often incongruous with the circumstances or with the persons professing them – cant is being used more and more frequently as a weapon against other values, as a means of subverting them. It is a means of corrupting the essence while amplifying the appearance. Apart from being so offensive to good taste, when practised in a chorus, as it often is nowadays, cant leaves its opponents too perplexed to do anything, other than run away from any rational confrontation.
Science and Knowledge
As it stands, the proposed legislation will also hamper us from acquiring knowledge of our social environment. Banning ‘offensive’ speech will undoubtedly prevent individuals from sharing their personal negative experiences, judging how common they are, finding the true scale of the problem and the possible ways of solving it. As they say: ‘if you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it’. Censorship will alter our perception of the social environment, depriving us of a large section of reality. It will prevent others from learning how to avoid similar misfortunes and how to protect themselves. ‘Offensive’ speech can be a way of getting access to justice – sometimes, the only one. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, behind the shield of offence-taking, some may be better able to cause you harm with impunity as your reaction will be forbidden and your allies’ hands will be tied behind their backs. People have articulated and shared their impressions and warned each other about real or perceived dangers since before the invention of pottery. Sharing one’s experiences – however contentious or crudely expressed they might be—with others is necessary for our survival.
Human knowledge has advanced through confrontation and the clash of different opinions. In a culturally active environment ideas change all the time, and what is today common knowledge may be replaced tomorrow by a better theory. Progress of knowledge has been described as a constant ‘correction of errors’[9]. There is always disagreement even between top experts. Scientific theories are provisional, revisable, incomplete, perspective-dependent and subject to many other contextual biases, and there are circumstances when more than one theory fits our observations. Free exchange of information and debate are therefore essential. “So truth does Fancy’s charm dissolve/ And rising Reason puts to flight/ The fumes that did the mind involve[10]” What scientific advancement can there be in a society where one set of opinions are protected from competition? Secular authorities’ claims to inerrancy and their treatment of lay notions as non-secular dogma amount to a trespass into church territory and usurpation of its role. State authorities are not infallible: they can also deceive and corrupt the public.
If, alternatively, certain topics are banned from exploration and critical debate, on the grounds that they cause emotional upset, this amounts to the introduction of senseless prohibitions in the field of rational and scientific enquiry – an approach which would be neither merciful, nor wise.
It is
not beyond the realm of possibility that, one day, scientific discovery might
lead to conclusions that offend one social group or another. What is to be done
then? Stop the progress?
“Wisdom
is known only by contrasting it with folly; by shadow only we perceive that all
visible objects are not flat.”[11]
There are, of course, and there have always been many pseudo-scientific theories swirling around, but this should train one’s logic and make one more careful and more experienced when selecting one’s sources of information and assessing their credentials. “Free speech” was not called in vain “the brain of the Republic”[12]
Psychology and Wellbeing
Censorship
would also prevent the authors of offensive communications and the pedlars of
malicious misinformation from getting proper feedback and from acquiring the
necessary rebuke and self-knowledge. The same goes for ‘the offended’, for “oftentimes
abuse, suddenly thrust on a man in anger or hatred has cured some disease in
his soul which he was ignorant of or neglected.”[13]
Yes, medicine sometimes tastes bitter. It is through their own efforts and
strains that individuals can build their best mental defences against falsehood
and vulgarity.
There
is huge benefit in having yourself reflected in others – what has been known as
‘the looking-glass effect’ – in observing in how others respond to you, feeling
encouragement or mortification, drawing conclusions and adjusting your opinions
and behaviour accordingly[14].
Application of the law, as designed by the government, would make such critical
information very scarce and, by replacing edifying public feedback with the
inscrutable decisions of online moderators, would lead to much confusion and
perplexity.
The ‘online harms’ legislation would therefore make normal people (rather than just politicians) think one thing and say another as the only way of gaining access to online forums; it will motivate many to acquire perverse natures - living the lie, or cause them inner tensions and even the development of split personalities like those wartime prisoners who were victims of psychological conditioning.
Fairness and Inclusion
Finally, the proposed bans on offensive speech and disinformation would discriminate against the silly and the eccentric – a family to which every one of us can belong at one time or another - and thus deprive us all of some fresh new perspectives or new challenges -”for always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits”.[15] - or rob us of all that healthy banter and fun that give vitality to online communities and protect against stultifying conformism. Imaginative theories, deemed to belong to the conspiracist genre – unless they are true, which quite often they are – plus a bit of indiscretion and scandal keep curiosity stimulated and keep us all amused between sessions of enforced positive thinking and unsmiling righteousness.
Implementation Difficulties
The proposed online harms legislation would require social media platforms moderators – workers employed by profit-oriented companies – to be omniscient paragons of wisdom and virtue, to be countless in number and have unlimited time. For to show any degree of fairness, companies would need inexhaustible resources to consider all the complaints of offended parties and the merits thereof. They will have to judge the ‘intent’ behind controversial statements and the felicity conditions of each contentious online interaction.
“I
am Sir Oracle: And I 'ope my lips let no dog bark”[16]
What is more, searching and judging our souls should not be their role. Some things are not Caesar’s.
It is therefore clear that burdened with such tasks, digital platforms will have no choice but to take short-cuts and the safest option, which means erring on the side of stricter censorship.
Ulterior motives
Anybody glancing once over the text of the proposed legislation can see that it bears the toothmarks of ulterior motives. In one word, the real, undeclared, purpose of such legislation is – tyranny. By restricting online speech on such arbitrary criteria, the State and powerful interests aim at taking control over our thoughts (for language modifies thinking), speech and association, and do so covertly and perfidiously, via proxies and anonymous agents. The removal of dissenting views from public discourse, will reduce the clash of opinions and much of the emotional friction that is so necessary to the formation of genuine relationships. It therefore becomes clear that the legislation purposely seeks to undermine the individual’s chances of identifying like-minded fellow creatures, of building trust, friendship and solidarity. The proponents of censorship fear solidarity; they know that the isolated, confused, individual is easier to manipulate and oppress.
Worse
still is the long-term effect on the human character and autonomy. People will
be passing the responsibility for their choices onto other parties, like
children deferring to their parents; others will become dependent on the same
parties to protect them from the smallest annoyance, from anything they don’t
like to hear. All these will lead to an immature society in need of being told
all the time what to think – plasticine in the hands of any tyrannical regime.
One will not be able to know who is in fact behind those who claim to be offended by some online comment or what external pressures social media companies may find themselves under when deciding what content to censure. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the government or some powerful interest groups might pose as individual members of online communities with a view to furthering their own hidden agendas.
This
kind of enablement would amount to an incursion of the State deeply into the
realm of civil society, which is contrary to the common good.
You
give the State and the powerful authority to decide, arbitrarily, what is true
and what is offensive, without debate, you give them unlimited power over you.
“Like buoys that
never sink into the flood,
On learning surface
we but lie and nod”[17]
[1]Iamblichus
[2]Irenaeus
[3]Hugh
Cecil
[4]Ibidem
[5]Philipa
Foot
[6]Plato,
Protagoras
[7]Plutarch,
Moralia
[8]Molière,
Tartuffe
[9]G.
Bachelard
[10]Based on
Milton and Shakespeare’s verses from The Tempest
[11]Ambrose
Pierce
[12]G.
Ingersoll
[13]Plutarch
[14]Social
Comparison Theory
[15]Shakespeare,
As You Like It
[16]Shakespeare,
Merchant of Venice
[17]A. Pope, The Dunciad
