Anthony Kellett | Facebook & YouTube Execs Just Don't Get Free Speech @AnthonyKellett | Uploaded April 2019 | Updated October 2024, 44 minutes ago.
Whilst this may be just another video about free speech, I want to focus more on the aspect of freedom to hear free speech. I believe this is too often ignored in the general debates around this subject.
People tend to be outraged by the right denied to a single individual to express their opinions, when I believe the greater injustice befalls those who are being denied the right to hear those opinions; in terms of sheer numbers, if nothing else.
I should have the right to hear any opinion I wish to hear, irrespective of whether I hate it or not. I find the idea, that a third party will decide what I will hate, utterly repulsive. I hate it far more than any speech I could imagine. Moreover, if I hear speech with which I disagree, I want to be able to formulate arguments against it, notwithstanding I want to hear it myself, so that I can attest that its content has not been ‘twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools’, as Kipling once wrote.
These are essential elements of a free society and the bedrock upon which western civilisation has been built. Opinions have been debated and many bad ones gradually eliminated – or, at least, made apparently fallacious – by great people being allowed to hear them and refute them. Eradicating this freedom risks dangerous ideas proliferating and becoming accepted as good ideas, because their flaws are not exposed.
On the flip-side, good ideas, which are detested by those in authority, can be quashed and effectively outlawed; and that assumes their conceivers would dare to voice them, in the first instance. Self-censorship, in the face of widespread condemnation or illegality, can be a far more effective tool to censor a disgruntled public than any direct legislation. Self-censorship is inevitably far more restrictive than legislation outlines, because the boundaries of legislation are not tested. People tend to stay so far from illegality that their personal rules are downright draconian, by comparison.
Finally, as J. S. Mill points out, it's only by hearing the opinions of others contrary to our own, or maybe the same framed in a different way, that we can test our own ideas. Maybe, our opinions become strengthened or they're changed. This is only possible if we can hear them all, good or bad.
I’ve included the answers of Facebook and Google representatives, just to show how they utterly fail to grasp the points made by Tom McClintock. Perhaps, they disagree with him. However, they frame their answers as if they are echoing his concerns, which they are not. McClintock basically claims we should be able to hear hate speech. The Facebook executive merely mentions censoring that which is already illegal and not disputed, by any reasonable person. The YouTube representative seems to agree, even allowing “offensive” material; and then points out that it wants material that is “free from hate”. I wonder who defines ‘hate’, in this context.
Who should be defining hate, on my behalf, and unilaterally deciding to protect me from it? I want to know who hates, and what they hate. I want to consider whether that hate is justified, or not. I can only do this by hearing it, for myself.
I’m adding a link to an earlier video of mine, where Brendan O’Neill explains much of my case. I believe it should be more widely heard. Even if you hate it, you should hear his points and decide that for yourself. You should not be delegating that responsibility to anyone else, in my opinion; not least global corporations or government thought police
Brendan O'Neill - Why Censorship is Abhorrent - youtu.be/hAFj9_CvRaA
Whilst this may be just another video about free speech, I want to focus more on the aspect of freedom to hear free speech. I believe this is too often ignored in the general debates around this subject.
People tend to be outraged by the right denied to a single individual to express their opinions, when I believe the greater injustice befalls those who are being denied the right to hear those opinions; in terms of sheer numbers, if nothing else.
I should have the right to hear any opinion I wish to hear, irrespective of whether I hate it or not. I find the idea, that a third party will decide what I will hate, utterly repulsive. I hate it far more than any speech I could imagine. Moreover, if I hear speech with which I disagree, I want to be able to formulate arguments against it, notwithstanding I want to hear it myself, so that I can attest that its content has not been ‘twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools’, as Kipling once wrote.
These are essential elements of a free society and the bedrock upon which western civilisation has been built. Opinions have been debated and many bad ones gradually eliminated – or, at least, made apparently fallacious – by great people being allowed to hear them and refute them. Eradicating this freedom risks dangerous ideas proliferating and becoming accepted as good ideas, because their flaws are not exposed.
On the flip-side, good ideas, which are detested by those in authority, can be quashed and effectively outlawed; and that assumes their conceivers would dare to voice them, in the first instance. Self-censorship, in the face of widespread condemnation or illegality, can be a far more effective tool to censor a disgruntled public than any direct legislation. Self-censorship is inevitably far more restrictive than legislation outlines, because the boundaries of legislation are not tested. People tend to stay so far from illegality that their personal rules are downright draconian, by comparison.
Finally, as J. S. Mill points out, it's only by hearing the opinions of others contrary to our own, or maybe the same framed in a different way, that we can test our own ideas. Maybe, our opinions become strengthened or they're changed. This is only possible if we can hear them all, good or bad.
I’ve included the answers of Facebook and Google representatives, just to show how they utterly fail to grasp the points made by Tom McClintock. Perhaps, they disagree with him. However, they frame their answers as if they are echoing his concerns, which they are not. McClintock basically claims we should be able to hear hate speech. The Facebook executive merely mentions censoring that which is already illegal and not disputed, by any reasonable person. The YouTube representative seems to agree, even allowing “offensive” material; and then points out that it wants material that is “free from hate”. I wonder who defines ‘hate’, in this context.
Who should be defining hate, on my behalf, and unilaterally deciding to protect me from it? I want to know who hates, and what they hate. I want to consider whether that hate is justified, or not. I can only do this by hearing it, for myself.
I’m adding a link to an earlier video of mine, where Brendan O’Neill explains much of my case. I believe it should be more widely heard. Even if you hate it, you should hear his points and decide that for yourself. You should not be delegating that responsibility to anyone else, in my opinion; not least global corporations or government thought police
Brendan O'Neill - Why Censorship is Abhorrent - youtu.be/hAFj9_CvRaA
