When
we hear the word censorship, we think of dictators and their totalitarian
governments who will jail or kill those who voice views in opposition of their
laws or beliefs. We think of ignorant
small-town librarians in America, who quietly do their best to limit certain
books and materials from being accessed by patrons of the library. We also think of religious schools that
censor the content of materials that disagree with the teaching of that
religion. But what about our technology
grants, the ones we rely on to usher in this new and unprecedented era of
global communications, where everyone’s a publisher and everything can be
accessed 24-7?
It
turns out they are some of the biggest censors of what gets read by the masses.
Twitter
has been cracking down not only on fake accounts, but accounts that it believes
communicates content in opposition of its policies. Such policies are arbitrary, ill-defined, not
consistently enforced, and seem to be in flux.
Google,
which can impact society in the way things come up on a search, is looking to
collaborate on mobile search in China.
But to do so means Google would have to abide by that nation’s
censorship policies, thus playing a significant role in oppressing 1.7 billion
people.
Now
you have Facebook, Apple, Spotify and You Tube teaming up to shun the
controversial website, Info Wars, because they deemed certain speech
“offensive.” Info Wars was accused of,
according to FB, “glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence
policy and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender,
Muslims, and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”
So
where does this leave us?
From
a free speech vantage point, recent actions by these technology companies
should deeply concern us. Do we want an
edited Internet, one in which we don’t know what’s been filtered out, by whom?
Do we want to shun debate and discussion, even when it involves topics and
viewpoints that most people would disagree with? When the online world increasingly dominates
where people are given information, can we afford to have a handful of
self-appointed censors be entrusted to always do what is best for society?
From
society’s perspective, those who believe Info Wars is a worthless site that
only stirs trouble with its hideous claims like Sandy Hook is a hoax or that
9/11 and Oklahoma City bombing were staged by the government, we may say: “good riddance.” But censorship doesn’t happen in isolated
situations. We can’t pick and choose who
gets to say what they want to say. Today
it’s Info Wars, tomorrow it could be CNN.
People
don’t like to think about censorship because it often pits competing values to
fight it out. No one wants to defend
Info Wars (not anyone who is sane and well-informed), but we don’t want to see
a bunch of tech companies decide who gets access to their platform and who
doesn’t, for one day, depending on a company’s ownership and the political
climate, that power can be abused to turn against something you believe in and
support.
There
are other laws to protect against those who defame, libel, or physically hurt
others. If someone says something
negative such as they hate Black people or Muslims should disappear, it’s their
opinion, however repulsive, ill-informed, and shocking as they may be. If one says, as if a fact, Barack Obama is a
bad person who killed my child, he or she can be sued on the grounds it’s a
knowingly – made false statement.
However,
those laws are hard to enforce and most people can’t afford to be tied up in
expensive, years-long litigation.
Truthfully our laws are inadequate to punish those who violate them, but
the answer can’t be vigilante censorship.
The
thing about free speech is that we expect people to employ it reasonably and in
the right spirit, but all too often people take things too far. Perhaps they’re insane or they simply like to
see people go ballistic over irrational commentary. Perhaps others profit, financially and politically,
from saying outrageous things, and sadly, some just genuinely believe in what
they say because they lack something – education, love, guidance.
So,
what are we to conclude here?
We
know the laws inadequately protect against liars, haters, and
opportunists: We know that portions of
society are intolerant and act out of ignorance. We also know that we can’t have people
respond to speech with violence. But we
can’t just censor speech either.
Society
has to work hard at correcting those who are wrong and to constantly speak out
on what it believes is right. In order
for a quality minority viewpoint to win the majority over, it must have equal access
to speech, even if it means giving a forum to those who are despicable and
awful human beings.
It
is not a victory to ban Info Wars from online media sites. It’s a threat to all speech when a handful of
powerful people – whether it be businesses or governments – serve as final
arbiters as to what should be deemed acceptable speech. We must battle against evil, speak out
against what’s wrong, and take steps to fix the world and to help avoid new
problems. Simply shutting off the mic
doesn’t change the mindsets of millions of people – it may only embolden them
and further escalate tensions.
If
the Internet was to really scrub clean all that people find objectionable,
little would be left. Some would argue
religions represent discrimination, homophobia, and hate speech. Others would say any group discriminates
against others purely by supporting one group to the exclusion of all
others. Anyone can find sexism, racism,
and any ism in people’s social media posts.
Every comic would be banned.
Millions of books would be stripped from being sold.
We
simply can’t ban or censor free speech, but we can help others evolve and come
to see alternate or better ways to view the world. But for the hardcore haters who end up
committing crimes, they will need to be prosecuted for such actions – but not
for their thoughts or words. Deeds are
what matter most.
I
don’t like to hear about Holocaust deniers, 9/11 hoax theories, or outrageous
hate-filled views, but if that’s the price to have free speech to all, so be
it. The other way – to censor and ban –
is much costlier to society and the human soul.
DON”T MISS THESE!!!
How do you find more book reviewers?
How authors could craft Facebook posts to sell
books
What will move an
author to actively promote his book?
Best Book On Fake News Shows Us How To Defeat
The Lies
Valuable Info On Book Marketing Landscape For First-Time
Authors
Do authors really promote the benefits of their books?
Scores of Best-Selling Book PR Tips from Book Expo PR
Panel
How should authors sell themselves?
Enjoy New 2018 Author Book Marketing & PR Toolkit --
7th annual edition just released
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.