Around 1997, I stumbled upon and joined an online forum, now somewhat infamously known as “FreeRepublic.com”. This was in the early days of online communities. My initial fascination with FreeRepublic (I was a “Freeper”, but I never called myself that), and my subsequent departure from it, marked my first of life long lesson in the self-contradiction that is “Freedom of Speech,” along with other lessons drawn from other online communities.
First, a little slam to the online communities, even to HH: We are a strange bunch. We get together “online”, virtually, not knowing who we are talking to, and pour our hearts out, or in many cases, pour our rage out. And when we are really coalescing, we even get together in real life, meeting awkwardly with strangers who already know our inner most thoughts and hates.
That’s really F*ing strange for human beings!
Freepers found out the hard way that “freedom of speech” among such Strange human beings is not easily manageable. 1st, Freepers tried to build their forum (and advertise it) as completely “UN-moderated,” anyone can say any thing. No censorship! Great ideal! I was hooked from the very beginning.
But the Owner of FreeRepublic.com was a California Republican (hard core one at that). So you get where this was going (even though I didn’t know, and I didn’t ask at the time).
Even though race was not generally disclosed or discussed, very quickly early on, if you expressed any ideas remotely considered “liberal” on FreeRepublic, you would get shouted down by the self-proclaimed die-hard “Freepers” as “Commie”, “Socialist”, etc.
Discussions on specific issues would always degenerate down into slogan shouting. “Freeper” itself, became a label of slogans, as if every one else were the “enemies” of the Republic.
And thus, very quickly, many of the early members left. No more issue discussions, only trading of conspiracy theories (against Clinton at the time). Forum even became moderated.
*
On the other side, the different story of 4Chan, which sprung Anonymous, which started in 2003. (I was not part of that).
They were a group of people, using the “B” board on 4Chan, to tell jokes that appealed to their particular sense of humor, to do outrageous things online (including forming swastika symbols using online game personas), and trolling to mess with people.
Their first motto apparently was, again, “freedom of expression” and of information. They wanted to say whatever they wanted to say, and they didn’t care.
But in their pursuit of more organized goals, they began to hack and protest, first against a neo-nazi radio talk show host, then against the Scientologists, (and the rest of the hacking is still history and ongoing).
*
I do not believe I (or any one) are really beyond, above, or outside of the nature of these groups, because they really just show our own human nature.
All human beings want to feel belonging in groups, no matter how strange they are. (Indeed, the more strange they are deemed by society, the more they want to feel belonging to their own unique group).
All human beings want to feel free to express themselves. (Hence, we invariably create concepts like “freedom of speech. And many groups aspire to want to keep that freedom alive. Yes, EVEN the “Commies” fought for that in their own revolutions).
But invariably also, ALL human beings want to not merely express themselves, but the ultimate goal of every Freedom of Speech is inevitably aimed at SHUTTING someone else up.
WHY? Because that’s the ONLY way to win an argument!
_________
Take for examples above, both Freepers and Anonymous started out with “freedom of expression” on their minds. But ultimately, they aimed to shut down the other side.
While Anonymous did not “moderate” their own forum, they organized to “hack” outside groups that they simply disliked (and/or justified as “Response” to some perceived infringement of “Freedom of Information”).
For example, Anonymous’ targeting of a Neo-Nazi Radio Show Host. What’s that all about? Some have excused it as merely pranking or trolling to mess with the host, (even though they eventually hacked his email and showed to public that the guy was an FBI informant, putting the guy’s life in danger). There is no doubt that the ultimate aim of these “pranks” were to shut the guy up, because he said things Anonymous didn’t like.
“Freedom of Expression”? It’s quite 1 way’ed.
Take another example, Anonymous (in)famously attacked PayPal and others (using DDoS), to protest their refusal to process payments for WikiLeak.
The justification was, on part, that DDoS was no different than a “sit-in” protest at a Diner (which is still trespass and a crime). But ACTUALLY, DDoS is more similar to causing a 100-city block traffic jam outside of a Diner, just so that other people can’t get to the Diner.
Forget for a moment the legality of action of a hack protest, Hey, I understand that Anonymous likes Wikileak for all the “free information”. If Anonymous wanted to help Wikileak, they could just simply help spread the information. But instead, they went to hack PayPal (who didn’t want to help Wikileak for their own reasons). It’s not like PayPal hacked Wikileak.
Bottom Line: Anonymous hacked PayPal, because they didn’t like that PayPal refused to help Wikileak, but that too was PayPal’s “Freedom of Expression”. Anonymous just didn’t like PayPal’s expression (in who it chose NOT to do business with).
On the other hand, I feel sympathy for Anonymous’ cause, they feel that PayPal (and other big corporations) are screwing the People, suppressing their right to expression by wielding the giant thunder hammer of corporate money. So, Anonymous (and others) felt the need to respond in kind (in some proportions). Which is like saying both the Hatfields and the McCoys are equally victims in this game. This game of Human Need to Shut the other guy up for good.
What did I, and should you, learn from all this?
That no one really stands for “Freedom of Expression”. All human beings really stand for the “Freedom” to Shut the other guy up.
Mister Unknown says
Following up on a related note, I found that complete, unfettered freedom of speech (with minimal or no moderation of any sort) in an online community can be highly detrimental to the quality of speech, & inevitably the quality of that online community & its participants.
The best example with which I have 13 years of personal experience is the case of Chinese Military Forum (CMF) vs. China-Defense Forum (CDF). Both were discussion sites where overseas Chinese (& any other interested party) can discuss topics related to Chinese security.
CMF had virtually no moderation/censorship of any kind. It soon degenerated into a forum full of childish personal attacks, utterly irrelevant topics (including some random dude ranting about his personal life), and ultra-nationalist nut-jobs from China and other countries who would futilely attempt to shout each other down, as if doing so could actually made their wishful thinking become reality.
Seeing the lack of action by CMF owners, a few individuals established their own site – CDF. In contrast to CMF, CDF was far more authoritarian. Several moderators & owners regularly banned & suspended spammers or those who degenerate logical, issue-based arguments into personal attacks (& sometimes they even banned those who simply annoyed them personally). They also enforced strict rules about posting pictures, staying on topic, starting new topics within the appropriate sub-forums, etc. They also categorized topics and moved people’s posts & deleted posts as they saw fit. In short, CDF was and is HEAVILY censored.
Today, CDF is the most respected English-language forum for any topic related to Chinese security. Most US-based professional PLA watchers (e.g. Andrew Erickson, Mark Stokes, etc) & PLA-focused journalists (e.g. David Axe, Richard Fisher, Jane’s writing staff, etc) are registered users of CDF (even though most do not actively participate in the discussions). On the other hand, CMF is still largely occupied by amateurs & wannabes.
For those who want to compare the sites:
CMF: http://zzwave.com/plaboard/
CDF: http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php
NOTE: Registration is required to access CDF content.
Black Pheonix says
@Mister Unknown
Yes, rather similar to how HH sprung from Fools Mountain.
Guo Du says
A thought provoking article! I don’t think members of a forum like this should ever meet, lest we can’t handle the disappointment ha ha. There’s an irrational reason as well: I believe the rational exchange would inevitably be perverted by irrelevant factors such as voice, look, mannerism, and bad breath. Just look at how image and impression have suppressed and replaced analysis in our TV generation!
You have pinpointed something much more fundamental than just the “freedom of speech”, namely, the balance between chaos and over-regulation. Anarchy is a bad name, but Free Trade, Free Press, Free Economy, Free Expression are good. Where is the rational boundary between a chaotic row and a free, unmoderated intercourse? I only know that if I have control over a system DESIGNED by myself, I’d label it a Free System, and encourage everyone to “freely” participate, as long as they observe the name of my game.
Wahaha says
(1) The essence of freedom of speech is about letting public beware of your opinions, this is where free press and freedom of speech differ.
If a journalist has an opinion on an issue, he can make public aware of it, especially those anchors, their opinions can shape how millions of people think. On the other hand, if you have an opinion, you can’t make public listen to you unless media and journalists like it.
(2) To have meaningful opinions, you must not be misled or manipulated. So you must have knowledge on pro and con of the issue you want to talk about.
Because most people get most of their information from TV and Newspaper, media and journalists can control what public are aware of. They will present the pro if they like it, they will present you the con if they don’t like it. In this way they can shape your opinions about certain issues, so you will say what they want you to say.
(3) When government controls TV and Newspaper, they control which part of issues open to public, pro or con; they can suppress opinions they don’t like. Unlike 40, 50 years ago when they blocked the information, now they don’t block all complains, but keep such opinions away from public’s attention
(4) “free” media, means that media and journalists control TV and Newspaper; control which part of issues open to public, pro or con (free from punishment if misleading and manipulating); control what issues will get public attention. Simply speaking, let them control information and public opinions.
*****************************************
Based on such understanding, China has less free press but freer speech, because in China, it is government that controls public opinions, but opinions disliked by government are still well aware by public.
In West, it is media and journalists that control public opinions and information, opinions disliked by media never get public attention, they even suppress pope’s opinions on Russian pu$$y girls.
Allen says
The problem with using notion of freedom of speech to justify anything is that it is intricately based on one’s presumptions and worldviews. What I think is rational – and hence within realm of debate – may not be so rational to you. What I think is harmless – and hence with the realm of exchange of idea exchange – may not be so harmless to you.
Hence in France and Germany, there is hyper sensitivity to religious expression by muslims, any denial of holocaust, political speech by neo-Nazis. They are hyper sensitive because people feel hurt threatened by these ideas. They are afraid certain ideas, will sweep up the populace so much in a way that leads to mob rule, to instability.
There is no notion of absolute freedom of speech. Freedom much be defined in context – against a set of political and social circumstances. This is why debates about freedom of speech can be so hurtful. It inevitably comes down to denying other’s interests, others view of the world, other’s sense of history, etc.
The U.S. is strong today. It is a superpower possessing a might that is unprecedented in history. So it can afford to be more tolerant to ideas that are hurtful, harmful, offensive, irrational – because less thing can hurt and harm it. The West in general also possess might that is disproportionate vis a vis rest of the world. But that doesn’t give them license to deny other’s sense of what is harmful, hurtful.
(Someone may raise the point that India too has freedom of speech. I will address that in another post, but suffice it to say, few scholar who study freedom of speech would say India has real freedom of speech. There is rhetoric. But on the ground, there is little if any real freedom – not freedom that is transformative, that is discoursive, that is rational. If there is any, it’s a real-life soap opera political bikering that confuses and enrages…but soothes the ego of the lowly politicians)
There is another point: freedom of speech is built on the notion that marketplace of ideas work – that it leads to rational discourse. But we all know it doesn’t.
Recently npr has featured stories that shows how in science forums, moderation is deemed important to communicating objective, scientific ideas. Without moderation, ideas get buried or distorted under a pile of human emotion and bigotry.
Here is one recent story about that topic:
http://m.npr.org/news/Science/174027294
Here is another.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/01/170855378/preserving-science-news-in-an-online-world