People do not censor because they fear that false information will come out, they censor because they are afraid true information will come out.
They might ignore false information, dismiss it, or not select it for their presentation, not even to refute it. But censorship is the choice when they know the jig is up.
Update: Censorship is not proof that it is true, nor even evidence of truth. But it is evidence that some authority fears it is true,
8 comments:
I hear this a lot, but I’m not sure it’s true. I’m thinking of the recent blitz on my town, where accusations were being thrown at people and lives destroyed at an extremely fast pace. Every time someone would protest people would respond with this “what are you so afraid of” type stuff, as though people typically have infinite patience for false things being repeated about themselves. All attempts to cool forums for public accusations were met with screams of censorship, so it’s a word used awfully loosely in many spots.
I’m certain we’re thinking of different things here, but it’s hard for me to move on from that recent example. Would be interested to see where you think that fits in.
I think you are correct in assessing that you are on two different subjects. AVI is mostly likely talking about official censorship such as the classification of military and government information as secret, whether for fair purposes or foul, or semi-official actions such as news reporting while you are talking about private actions unfortunately often called censorship.
@Christopher B unfortunately no, we had quite a few accusations of government censorship flying around.
The first was the management of our select board meetings, which are broadcast by law and include a public comment period. Youtubers started streaming the meetings and they and their fans would show up and monologue whatever the accusation of the day was. When they instituted a 3 minute cut off, people immediately started to exceed it in the hopes of forcing on camera altercations while screaming censorship/what are you afraid of/assault when asked to stop. Then they moved to zoom, which was again met with cries of censorship and "what are you so afraid of". They didn't get very far, but the question was raised how much the government has to provide a platform for a citizen to accuse another citizen of a crime for which there is no proof.
The second was related, but involved setting up similar accusations with large groups of protestors waving signs outside private businesses. I was personally accosted by such protesters and screamed at, but of course they claimed none of this was happening and that it was censorship/fear when they were asked to move.
AVIs first statement was "People do not censor because they fear that false information will come out, they censor because they are afraid true information will come out.", but in both these cases the complaint was "I have not murdered anybody, nor has my child and these people are grabbing platforms to accuse us of such". I don't think this is true, I think most people get frustrated at watching false information be pushed out at a rapid pace, particularly if it is against them personally. At one point one of the government lawyers actually asked a judge "are you saying the only remedy here for a private citizen is a defamation suit that will take a minimum of 3 years to resolve? That people have no recourse prior to that?" It's a question that's stuck with me.
I am not looking for stricter speech laws at all btw, just pointing out that enforcing the current ones is often met with cries of censorship, even when months later it's found not to have been justified. Calling that all fear isn't entirely fair, there are lots of reasons you might want someone to stop saying something.
I should also add: one of the Youtubers who led this charge also was prolifically filing police reports (not just defamation cases) against his critics for their "mean words" against him. He's friends with a nationally known 1st amendment attorney, who often defended his actions both on Twitter and in court. When this attorney was asked on Twitter how he could support someone who claimed free speech for his own actions while using the courts to punish his critics speech, the attorney just blocked people. Totally his right, but it certainly soured me on the idea that these people were interested in the principled stances they so often brag about.
The first thing I would say is that this was not censorship, but an accusation of censorship. People hide behind legitimate complaints all the time. "They hate me because I'm a Christian." "They fired me because I was a woman who spoke up."
Point taken, though. I hadn't thought of the accusation distinction at all until you brought it up.
Yes, there is a difference if we're talking about ideas vs specific statements of fact. "I think your model makes the wrong assumptions/projections about climate change" is a different accusation than "you fabricated your data". That's a lot of what troubled me. One really can (and often should) be endlessly debated, the second one ends with people going through your trash to try to prove something you've denied 16 times already.
Sexual assault allegations and racism accusations both have hit this problem as well. When is it a free speech/censorship issue and when is it just defamation? Lotta careers have been ruined long before the courts got around to addressing the defamation claims.
The biggest local controversy right now is the county commission (Republican majority of self-described Conservative Christians) trying to take over the library to force it to remove gay/trans books from the children's section.
How does that fit the model? I get the sense that they believe that the censorship isn't of false or true information, exactly, but that it might alter reality -- that some children might be kept from being exposed to ideas that could change them into something less good than what they would otherwise become. That may be right or wrong, but it's not about suppressing either a truth or a falsehood.
I think they regard it as suppressing a falsehood--the claim that gay/trans are normal and good.
Post a Comment