It's easy to argue for free speech when the speech you are advocating is popular and agreeable. It's much harder to support free speech when the speech is unpopular, disagreeable and even hateful.
This situation, which I call "the paradox of free expression," has been in the news lately because of the anti-Muslim film that was posted on YouTube and which inspired anti-American demonstrations and violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In fact, the nature of the film and the violent response to it have renewed calls for government action against the filmmaker and calls for YouTube to remove the film from its site. Commenting on all of this, civil liberties writer Glenn Greenwald points out that neither the American left or right has taken a principled stand for free speech. Both sides have been quick to abandon a consistent free speech position and criticize YouTube. Both sides have pushed for government action to remove the film from the Internet.
Greenwald notes, however, that government attempts to censor political speech runs counter to the free speech philosophy of the First Amendment. Free expression is supposed to protect controversial and offensive ideas, he notes. Moreover, he continues, "the White House has no business sticking its nose into which videos YouTube decides to publish or suppress." (A link to Greenwald's column is here.)
For this blog assignment, read the entire Greenwald column and think about his arguments in light of our recent class readings. What would Milton say about the current controversy? What position would Locke or Cato take on these matters? In other words, what ideas or principles would these thinkers apply to this situation?
For this blog assignment, identify one or more free speech principles from Milton, Locke or Cato and apply them to the current controversy. Explain how your principle(s) applies to the controversy and how it attempts to resolve the debate over offensive speech.
Write about 250 words, which is about 15 sentences. Note: This is a longer post than previous blog assignments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Zak Patterson
It is clear that advocates of free expression SHOULD be in opposition to the government intervening with entities such as YouTube, by trying to censor the video Greenwald talks about. Since it is an anti-American video, it is only natural to view it, and think it is terrible. But as Greenwald points out, “free speech is not intended to protect benign, uncontroversial, or inoffensive ideas. Those ideas do not need protection. It is intended to protect—to foster—exactly those political ideas that are most offensive, most provocative, most designed to inspire others to act in the name of its viewpoints.”
The article reminded me of John Milton’s work. Milton goes into a good degree of detail describing why licensing is harmful toward a free-expressionist society. In a way, licensing in his time, controlling what people could and could not print, is similar to the way the government might want to censor this anti-American video, because of the “violence” it might produce. Political powers licensed, at least partly, because they feared that their power could be undermined if people were able to freely express their thoughts. In a similar way, the White House is intervening against people’s views who are not their own, and that is why Greenwald is upset, and why Milton too would be upset. Just because it is a view other than its own, the White House should not be able to squash it (like a licenser) even if it could bring rise to violence, that’s not a valid reason, and ultimately violates the first amendment.
Maggie Tracy
In any publication where a country is being ridiculed or protested, controversy is an almost certain friend to follow along. It is shocking to me that the White House would take such huge strides to control these videos when they must know that hundreds, if not thousands, of other videos just like it exists elsewhere on the internet and in the world. There are surely radio shows, TV segments, documentaries, music, and all other forms of media that contain similar messages to these YouTube videos and by no means can the White House choose to edit all of those too. Greenwald says, “…the White House has no business sticking its nose into which videos YouTube decides to publish or suppress” (paragraph 6). I think that the ideas put forth in Cato coincide with what Greenwald is saying because as discussed in class, “Freedom of Speech is ever the Symptom, as well as the Effect, of good Government” (Cato 51). Can the government be trusted if they attempt to suppress our freedom of speech. If Muslims who are legally American citizens publish videos supporting their beliefs against America, what law are they breaking? The government trying to silence them is the law that is being broken, the amendment being offended. Everyone has a right to publish their thoughts and by attempting to contain and silence any particular point of view can only lead to a perceived “bad” government. As Cato said, “…when they are honest, they ought to be publickly known, that they may be publickly commended” (Cato 51) and I think that is the point Greenwald wants to make – these videos are someone’s honest opinion so they should be open for any and all interpretation and commentary.
Kristina Merkle: Its obvious that people are very much against this video and that they want it taken down, but I can see why there is so much controversy with the idea about freedom of speech.This video does show a point of view that does not agree with America and because of that I can understand why people would want it taken down. At the same time though, the idea about freedom of speech is so that everyone's idea is heard whether other people like it or not.
This article reminded me more of Locke's idea and the thought that everyone should be treated equally. The feeling about the video are more based on what people believe is right or wrong. Since people feel this way, they feel that they have the higher power and should be able to take this video down. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, regardless of their views. Locke would argue that the White House shouldn't have gotten involved because it takes away from the idea of freedom of speech. Just because it is a view that does not agree with American Society does not mean they have the right to get rid of it.
Barrett Hunter
Greenwald makes some good points on the breach of free speech rights by the government in response to the Anti-American protests. I completely agree with his points. We live in a country that was built on freedom and liberty. We have always made it a point to work to spread our ideas of free speech and liberty to countries around the world. Denouncing a video that while controversial and a little extreme is pretty accurate in its notions of Muslim radicals takes is the opposite of everything we have built our country on. John Locke says to know how to be good and righteous you must be aware of the evil aspects of life as well. The Lockean notion of reason is not something that applies to Muslim extremists. If a simple video causes them to kill our citizen’s then taking it off the internet is not going to stop Anti-Western ideals in Muslim culture. It is so engrained in their religious ideals to hate Western culture; we cannot use reasonable tactics with them. At the same time a person’s life is more important than the protection of free speech, so if breaching free speech rights can save lives then it would be a reasonable decision. But the fact is that this is not the case at all. Muslim radicals will still be violent as long as Western democracy exists. The Middle East has grown to represent the opposite of the ideals our founding fathers built our country on.
Andrus Rodriguez
The concerns about how the Obama administration attempted to handle the “anti-Muslim” YouTube video reminded me of a quote that was mentioned in our book, (“The Element of Journalism,” by Winston Churchill), “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” In that we are flooded with so much information at such high speeds that when we see reactions take place it is quickly transmitted before we know and are left open for interpretation before you could even strategize your next move. It seems as though we have gotten too conditioned from the Bush administration to jump or get startled when we hear anything that contains “Muslim” or “terrorist” in its context. And If the Obama administration were not to react in the manner as they did would it have the same criticisms?
The attempts to place some “weight” against YouTube to “request” they consider censoring the video goes back to how Locke explains that it would only force the progress that has been achieved to result in placing all of us to walk backwards into a state of magistrate rule. He wrote that “whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war;” which as with today’s controversy the “weight” did not intimidate YouTube to submit to their request or censor the creator of their “property”.
Controversy is what stirs up conversations. What if all what we interpreted was safe to the eye and ears? We would be like those prisoners in the Plato’s cave. Milton said that if we limit our ways of truly expressing what we think, we limit the progression of the free flowing waters and “they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.” Milton also said that controversy is the expression of where we are able to learn, and that it is necessary to express that difference in “much arguing, much writing” and many opinions are good because it is where “knowledge [is] in the making.”
Tolerance is easier said than done; as Cato mentions “it is an evil arising out of a much greater good.” The world would have to take in the versions of other people’s “truth” however disturbing it may be in order to not be faced with the limitations of censorship.
Michael Thomas
During this issue about the posting of the YouTube video about Mohammed, I was unsure about the appropriate method to handle the situation as to whether or not the video should be removed, censored it in such a way to make an armistice of sorts. I truly do not believe that we can find any possible solution that will maintain peace while maintaining our first amendment right to our freedom of expression. And I believe this is evident through the paradox of freedom of expression through the work of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
Part II, article 6 through 12 of the Leviathan, by Hobbes, outlines exactly why he does not believe that freedom of expression can be possible without war. He thinks it boils down to 6 points. The first stating,” Since man, by nature, competes for honor and dignity, then it only is logical that envy, hatred, and war follow as a result from said competition.”
The other points range from community based reasons like comparisons of good and evil, to even the difference between injury and damage as to why we are incapable of peaceful freedom of speech. But Locke says that that our freedom of speech is not possible through our nature of peace. But our peace is through our utilization of this freedom. As said through his essay on toleration in 1667, “Yet even here, since no man may be forced to alter his opinion, the citizens should obey the magistrate’s prescriptions and accept the state’s legislation as their consciences see fit ‘as far without violence they can.”
Rachael Wells: Greenwald brings to light a problem that I think we have had for the last four years with this administration. Although there were many errors made during the Bush administration, the left would have had a field day if he would have even suggested the idea of censoring a video. People tend to side solely with the party with which they affiliate rather than what they believe to honestly be true. Organizations that support free speech were right for coming out and questioning the actions of our government. When people stop questioning our leaders than the idea of democracy is completely lost. In the last article tht we read by Cato, the author mirrors the idea of Greenwald's article. He feels like the government can't be trusted if they are trying to put limits on our speech. It is a God-given right of this nation and should be perserved in its fullest form.
Rachael Wells: Greenwald brings to light a problem that I think we have had for the last four years with this administration. Although there were many errors made during the Bush administration, the left would have had a field day if he would have even suggested the idea of censoring a video. People tend to side solely with the party with which they affiliate rather than what they believe to honestly be true. Organizations that support free speech were right for coming out and questioning the actions of our government. When people stop questioning our leaders than the idea of democracy is completely lost. In the last article tht we read by Cato, the author mirrors the idea of Greenwald's article. He feels like the government can't be trusted if they are trying to put limits on our speech. It is a God-given right of this nation and should be perserved in its fullest form.
Post a Comment