A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
Brian and I got into a pretty lengthy discussion about “limitations” certain governments placed on the idea of “Freedom of Speech” over Skype. This came about when some moron in Germany (or was it Austria?) got arrested for preaching that Holocaust never happened. Apparently it’s illegal to deny this very historical fact.
Brian thinks there shouldn’t be any limitations at all on freedom of speech. The government should have used abundance of true information to fight dis-information. While I agreed with most of his points, I thought maybe it’s a good idea of have some oversight to ensure certain “facts” will remain factual for futural generations (as opposed to having even a shred of doubt about the integrity of that “fact” ). Or else you end up with something like Japan to whom the Rape of Nanking never took place. And when enough people buy into the idea and gathers enough momentum, dis-information just might overtake the facts, and that very dis-information may become the “fact” that it just replaced.
In the context of social engineering and group dynamics, Clay Shirky thinks that certain amount of moderation is always a good idea in light of what programmers have learned from the early days of the Internet. He argues that when freedom of speech is truly “free”, online communities always fail and burn in chaos. There are certain kinds of behavioral traits in humans that will always surface. So in essence, there can probably never be true freedom of speech for as long as the humans are in charge of things. Without the rules of law, can civilized socieities stay civilized? Based on the findings of online forums Clay Shirky cited, the short answer is NO.
Related PostsThirty-six Stratagems Scamming the Scammers Sucks to Be Middle Class White Male in America FreeCycle Is It Wrong?
March 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Being German, the Holocaust (and the denial of it) is a very important topic to me. Yes, in Germany – and Austria, but I’m not sure about that – it’s illegal to deny the Holocaust and to publicly show symbols like the swastika.
We have, however, a lot of freedom of speech over here, so of course the swastika can be shown in documentaries or movies, and there are some crazy so called historians who, between the lines, deny the crimes that happened back then to some degree.
It’s interesting that you mention the state of civilization here. Almost ironic, since during the Third Reich, all that happened was both legal and – most of it – considered civilized. I have to add though that most of the people didn’t know the details of what happened to the Jews, they just noticed that they were put away.
So what is civilization, when the most cruel things can happen legally at one time in a society that calls itself “civilized” and be considered a crime against humanity at another?
In my opinion, having laws is not enough. We had them back then and they weren’t doing any good. And leaving it to the government to publish “true information” is not a good idea – maybe the government doesn’t have any true information, or they willingly publish dis-information.
What is most necessary is the division of power between legislature, executive authority and judiciary. We, the people, need powerful courts and strong judges, who do not only decide whether something is lawful, but also whether something is just.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Hey man…I don´t get something. When Shirky was talking about freedom of speech, it didn´t seem to me that it was the same type of free speech that we talk about in relation to our governments.
My read on the article is that social groups, when left unmoderated, eventually reach a point where some moderation is necessary. This is in line with pretty much everything I´ve heard from sociology and organizational behavior as well.
But, for example, in the article Shirky talks about a group of high schoolers that take over a board with inappropriate talk. His comments about free speech don´t seem to me to be comparable to governmental free speech in the strictest sense.
I would think that on a political level you could say that one could have complete freedom of speech, but at an organizational level you could have a different code for speech — what is appropriate and what is not.
You said,
“So in essence, there can probably never be true freedom of speech for as long as the humans are in charge of things. Without the rules of law, can civilized socieities stay civilized? Based on the findings of online forums Clay Shirky cited, the short answer is NO.”
I´m not sure if a society could arise in our lifetimes that remains civilized without some code of conduct, simple rules, or governance. However, I would say that there is a difference between governance and free speech. Free speech represents an important tenet within the larger scope of governance, and I would argue that it does exist (as long as we don´t get CRAZY philosophical) and exists right in your backyard.
If by “true free speech” we mean that anyone can say anything, even hateful speech, then I would argue that it CAN exist, as long as it is applied to all members of that group, as an important component of a larger code of conduct. As long as it is reasonable that the other members of the group could have such liberty as well, I don´t see why not. As long as reputation is involved (anonymity feeds the problem), I don´t think it´s impossible to have “true free speech.”
A society without some form of governance (at whatever level), however, seems contrary to most everything I have read in sociology texts. Things have a tendency to break down at some threshold.
Okay, I´m done. Hope that makes sense. It´s late here.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Have you seen the movie “Hotel Rwanda”? Hollywood dramatization aside, it is happening everyday.
Shirky’s writing on high school kids taking over bulletin boards is just another example of how a group can turn into a living monster without some kind of moderation, including moderation on speech. Again, my best example is Japan and its denial of its roles in WW2 against peoples of Asia Pacific. Their free speech law says it’s OK to forget their brutal past while countries like Germany and Autria actually made a law to make sure people don’t forget its aweful lessons from history. Certainly Shirky was talking about social behavioral issues, not politics per se, I simply inferred that without some kind of moderation in public “free speech”, the price of chaos is higher than the right for “true” free speech, other wise there wouldn’t be laws against slanders, insider trades, publicly announce that you will kill the president of the United States… etc.
Always has, and always will. That’s simply human nature. That’s what made “Lord of the Flies” such a good book.