Fight for a political/cultural climate that assists us and those we are in solidarity with.
|
On fighting reactionary politics, censorship, and harassment
by Carl Pwccaman, Unknown News
Sept. 23, 2003
There are a lot of valid reasons why free speech is a good thing, and why harassment of various sorts, is a bad thing, in terms of what is right and what is wrong.
It is easy to take a very firm and simple stance against governmental censorship boards, as well as against instances of harassment where clear harm is done. It is easy because it is clear enough that these things are undesirable, and so the politics can be more straightforward. But other related controversies, and attempts to deal with various serious problems, involve a hell of a lot of politics and complications. The Devil himself, is certainly in the details.
When it comes to political or legal efforts for or against anything, issues of practicality, as well as of ethics and fairness, come to the fore. And this is true whether it is about protection of free speech, enforcement against harassment, or attempts to prevent a riot. There are issues of who is taking the active/leading roles, who is the catalyst for any change involving the approaches to these issues, who are all the players who would be in some possible degree of control or responsibility, who could really serve as a watchdog against abuse, etc. There are concerns as to the criteria used to differentiate between actual harassment or determining that someone is in real danger of rousing a mob to riot, from situations where someone simply has the gall or courage to state an unpopular view and refuses to be silenced by group pressures. All these concerns get jumbled together, and I think it is important to keep these in mind, as well as their typically jumbled state.
I do not intend to go into depth reviewing and critiquing the current US Supreme Court interpretations on the ins-and-outs of free speech and assembly in America at this point in history, where I agree or disagree, etc. But I do hope to convey a bit of the social realities involved, and the practical, tactical, and strategic aspects of this, as it pertains to politics against what can be called reactionary social tendencies.
But what is most empowering is precisely the politics of the political climate and culture among our own allies, whom we stand in solidarity with, and our own personal political actions, to defend people against humiliation and harassment by bullies and bigots, to oppose reactionaries, to step in and stop threats and intimidation, ourselves, without apology. For if we simply oppose governmental censorship and yet stay silent when others are fueling reactionary tendencies in our culture: homophobia, sexism, racism, religious bigotry, anti-Semitism, and sentiments that are anti-Arab, anti-Immigrant, or anti-Foreigner.... then we are not thinking clearly enough, and not acting as effectively as we might. It is our duty to actively stop harassment and intimidation. If we do not care, who else will?
Against censorship
Censorship, as a principle, especially when enforced by a government, tends to force dangerous movements underground, and on a practical level this can make them harder to track. Also, censorship generally builds resentment over the suppression of opinion, sometimes gaining broader sympathy among people who otherwise would be opposed to each other, because of the tactics of suppression, the mystique of secrecy, and a distrust of things that are hidden or covered-up on the side of the powers that be. There is also the factor of distrust of official propaganda, especially when combined with various tactics of suppression. Censorship also limits what people can explore in terms of books, articles, philosophies, in their quest for deeper understanding and freedom of the mind.
So there are lots of very practical reasons to say governmental censorship is not only NOT the best policy, but that it causes lots of problems, sometimes fueling the very tendencies that concerned the censors in the first place. Censorship does not directly address the underlying causes that lead to the outbreak of bullying, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc., so it is generally weak and ineffective as a solution, especially when it is relied upon as the cure-all.
Having the political freedom to criticize the government, the experts, the prevailing values of one's society, the dominant religions, as well as one's society's approach towards or against spirituality and religion, is very valuable in finding solutions to tough problems, preventing future problems, and helps the overall culture to struggle with reality, with understanding.
For individuals, the sort of political and cultural environment that allows or promotes such speech can encourage one's mind's development and growth, so that self-censorship in the psyche, and the pressures and barriers to exploration of ideas, does not do as much damage to the process of exploring and understanding reality. So, in contrast to a culture of censorship, a culture of free exchange of ideas is a very positive thing.
Against forced speech/harassment, etc.
People call the cops when the music is too loud when they have to get up early the next day for work, or they can hear fighting words in the apartment next door, others hang up 'no solicitation' signs to send away salesmen and door-to-door missionaries, there is a 'do not call list' to prevent telemarketers from calling, there are concerns about adults exerting undue influence upon other people's children, restraining orders are sought and sometimes enforced, many forms of harassment is illegal, and one can be put behind bars for making a credible verbal threat of violence.
Clearly, many seek protection from others, who are seen as attempting to exert force or domination, at least partially through certain types of speech which are used to intrude, harass, intimidate, or otherwise harm others. The details may be debated, but the reality is, death threats can understandably lead to violent retaliation. Speech can have consequences.
Threatening to expose someone's dirty secret (an affair, embarrassing past, etc.) unless someone complies with your wishes, is considered blackmail. Simply asking for money or a service in exchange for not releasing certain pictures, is a crime. Offering some gift to a governmental official, in connection with some service rendered in return, is seen as a bribe. A verbal threat of violence is also considered a crime. Saying 'fighting words' during an argument can make it impossible to sue or press charges against someone for putting you in the hospital. Saying 'fighting words' can even let someone off the hook or reduce the sentence for murdering you, if the jury is sympathetic. Then there is the proverbial speech that incites riot or mob violence, for example, shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, or speaking in such a manner to a group of roused angry men, that someone is liable to be lynched. If someone is lynched after a speech you give rallying a crowd against the victim, or scapegoating groups that the victim is identified as a member of, you may be held accountable for the murder, morally as well as legally.
Forcing someone else's children to listen to indoctrinating speech, is considered wrong because of undue influence and the element of captive audience, force, etc. Yet doing the same to your own children (seen as your property), is often considered all right. If you reduce someone else's child to the point of tears and nightmares, by your speech, you are likely to have a definite problem with the child's parents, and perhaps with the law as well. Verbal abuse is something people defend themselves from, and something they seek to protect others from.
Haranguing someone with one's pamphlets (religious or political) when they make it clear that they are not interested, is considered harassment, a violation of the person's private space, an intrusion, perhaps as an attempt to interfere with their own pursuit of happiness. Continuing to speak in a way that makes someone unable to focus on work or studies at school, is considered harassment, if only because it interferes with one's legitimate right to attempt to make a living or get a good grade.
As issues of harassment and force show, when indulging in one right infringes upon another's right, the limit or scope of rights becomes clearer.
Fighting for a political/cultural climate
Creating a climate where people are afraid to speak or afraid to disagree has a censorious effect. Creating a climate of scapegoating, bigotry, or demagogy also has a censorious effect. And yet, in order to undo the censorious effect, efforts to speak out against those who create such a censorious or intimidating environment, or efforts to take even temporary sanction of some sort against them, can lead also lead to the charge of censorship. Often that charge is by the very ones who were seen as taking advantage of the climate of intimidation, or those who created that climate. Others understandably become confused by the complexity of these issues. Clearly we want to protect critical and unpopular speech, the presentation of argument, the dispute over facts, and yet it is not in our interest to encourage a climate of intimidating group pressure that leads to self-censorship of alternatives and options, or implied threat of harassment to those who dissent or are of the wrong background.
We clearly gain nothing by promoting scapegoating of ethnic groups, religions, and races. We don't even gain by scapegoating other nations. Fighting the scapegoating process is helpful, and yet it is sometimes met with by opposition, not necessarily by actual fascists or the most vile demagogues, who we expect as opposition, but also by people who are concerned with principles of freedom.
It is controversial to attempt to fight the style or climate of demagoguery and scapegoating, while attempting to preserve the freedom to present ideas and arguments that are unpopular. Certain biases are regularly attacked, still a cause of concern, or increasingly fought against, while other biases are taking the back seat or going unchallenged, even when reactionary expression of these biases is rearing its head more often.
In counteracting bullies or harassers, one might take all sorts of action to restrict the offending party. One might shout down the bully with the megaphone, talk over an abusive speaker, or refuse to allow a bigot to speak unchallenged. One might even stop such a bully from intimidating or harassing someone. Such actions are very important... and these things can be very just. They can also be empowering to people who were previously subjected by a hostile and threatening climate. Technically, the bully may loose some teeth and be unable to continue harassing others, but such is justice. Such is a redress of balance in the world of political realities. And provided that the bully or reactionary is still able to present their theory or concepts, this is a significant improvement, as the ideas are not censored, yet the bully may more likely have to face the consequences of making threats, implied or direct.
There is a saying, if you want peace, work for justice. Well, justice can also be a response to certain kinds of speech. Especially when there is a credible threat of violence. The fact that sometimes people are control-freaks, nit-picking to weed out every offense, dominating in their concerns about the 'climate', does not negate or erase valid concerns about those who encourage reactionary tendencies that lead to mob violence, and those who dominate through speech.
The question is how to assess instances of domination and how to respond. Responding to a dominator/instigator can itself be portrayed as dominating, instead of as a response to an implied or direct threat. Without sympathy for the one who is threatened, and without withdrawing sympathy from express bigots, admitted authoritarians, and the like, judgment will be skewed against us.
There is no equality, here. Bigots and authoritarians will skew judgment if we are trying to be relativistic to the extent that we validate their position as just as valid as others. They have just as much a right as others, to have an unpopular view, to make a pamphlet and present a theory, but their position itself is often an implied or direct threat, not against the powers that be or the dominating authorities that rule, not against the real powers that be, but against the working guy, the homeless, the immigrant, the Jews, the Blacks or Arabs, the Homosexuals, or the non-Christians, the Pagans, the weak, the underdog, the scapegoat. And I'll side with all the divisions of people, against the ruling powers, against the authoritarians, against the sociopaths and bullies. The other side fends for itself very effectively, and does not need any effort of support from me. They dominate too much already.
So fine, let them have their view, their pamphlet, their theory, their argument... do not censor it, just respond with your own view, clearly and with conviction. But once they dominate a discussion, once they intimidate, once they imply a threat, once they advocate authoritarianism or violence against the little people I'm in solidarity with, they aren't just speaking any more. They are perpetuating a system of domination and abuse of power, and fueling tendencies of reaction, demagoguery, or scapegoating. And people like me will most likely find some way to counteract them, without apology.
Which side are you on?
Governments are easily used to serve bullies, reactionaries, and authoritarians all too well, when it suits their own interest, and any attempt at censoring our opponents would likely be turned against the likes of me and you, to censor us, the little guys, as well, the way abuse of power goes. So that is another reason for us to take it upon ourselves to RESPOND to our enemies, instead of attempting to censor, and especially instead of putting all our hopes in the government to protect us from them.
The governments typically are served well by a certain level of reaction and bigotry, anyway, so the governments are never whole-hearted allies. It is better for us to demand the right to fight our fight, creating the sort of culture that sympathizes more clearly with the fight against authoritarians, bigots, and reactionary bullies, and to cautiously open up doors for legal tools that we might use in our own interest. We must step up and speak our own views against theirs, and we must defend the intimidated, the humiliated, and the harassed, ourselves. It is for US to intervene, by word AND by deed. And though the government should be able to stop reactionaries and bigots from intimidating through violence, we should be able to intervene ourselves, when they do not, and we need to be able to fight for ourselves.
Without some context, the reactionaries, bullies, sociopaths, and their relativistic excusers, rationalizers, and other allies, will confuse the assessment. Bullies sometimes claim they are being dominated, or persecuted, when they are not, or when they have provoked a response by making threats or blaming the victims. Sometimes reactionaries escalate concerns so that people have legitimate fears that if no action is taken, the reactionaries will become violent. Sometimes people overreact to reactionaries, falling into the hands of them and participating in the dynamic of reaction themselves.
The only way to make sense of this is to decide, which side are you on. If one takes a position against bullying sociopaths, against instigating reactionaries, against the reactionary scapegoating process itself, against reactionary tendencies in society, against the climate of intimidation, against those who would appeal to demagoguery, against the appeal of the worst instincts in humanity to divide us and incite needless division and hostility, against the presumption of the powers that be and the ultimate profiteers of the power system as it currently stands, wherever we may be, and the powers that be in every region that manipulate and abuse power.... THEN we have a workable position, and a workable context.
Our actions against them, in response to their reactionary tendencies, in response to their scapegoating and demagoguery, should not be allowed to be confused by their apologists. If we are really counteracting reactionaries, and if we are checking against the reactions in ourselves, and we are fighting against domination, bullying, and sociopaths, then we should not let them distract us from our stance and judgment, and we should remember that we have the moral high ground in such a fight.
We do not need to risk loosing the high ground by attempting to censor their pamphlets and books, but we need not let them burn crosses, as if that has to be legal when it is a fire hazard anyhow, and an intimidation tactic, a physical threat of violent reaction. We do not need to confuse issues by intimidating those who simply express conservative opinions or radical speculations, but we can certainly shout down someone and physically interfere when someone is dominating through speech to humiliate or intimidate others.
Summation
Against censorship: Governmental censorship boards are not effective at addressing the problems they are created to solve, often encourage the very tendencies or fuel the underground growth of the groups they are fighting, and such a policy can become a delusional 'cure all'. Censorship in general, stifles intellectual creativity and mental exploration, and becomes internalized within individuals even without formal policies simply through group pressures and norms. Internalized self-censorship, which is increased by enforcement of policies of censorship, puts shackles on the mind. Fight Censorship.
Against forced speech/harassment: When harm comes about through speech, or when voices a death threat, it is not considered censorship for this speech to be punished. Indoctrination of children in a captive audience against parents wishes, is considered undue influence. Speech that conveys a physical threat, offers a bribe, or implies blackmail, can be effectively prosecuted with severe penalties. People who do not want your religious or political pamphlets or who do not want to be repeatedly confronted with our speech, have the right to tell us to back off, and if we do not respect their wishes, our further speech may be considered harassment. Fight Harassment.
Fighting for a political/cultural climate: When someone is fostering a climate of intimidation against others, simply for disagreeing with them, we may oppose it by fighting for a climate of free exchange of ideas, or by defending ourselves and our allies, or by fighting for an environment where those we stand in solidarity with, can effectively counteract the intimidation. This raises confusing issues, because those who abuse power, bullies, reactionaries, authoritarians, and demagogues who use scapegoating tactics, will rationalize their abuses and intentionally seek to distort everyone else's thinking on these issues. They use arguments that were designed to create a more favorable climate for free exchange of ideas, content, and disputes over ideas, facts, and theories, into arguments to defend their threats, intimidation, and other tactics which create the opposite climate of suppression and fear. We have to be clear that those who respond to a bigot, or to a self-proclaimed advocate of authoritarianism, or to a political reactionary/demagogue, are defending against an actual threat, implied or direct. Responding, as such, is understandable, and even necessary. We cannot confuse this with the bigot, authoritarian, or demagogue's discomfort in being challenged, refuted, counteracted, or put back in place off of whatever privileged position he might expect or desire. To respond to a threat or climate of intimidation by taking direct action to stop the threat or intimidation, is not the same as preventing the other side's presentation of an argument over facts, theories, or ideas. The views and efforts of bigots, authoritarians, and demagogues, are NOT morally equivalent to others. To see them relativistically as equal, is to loose perspective that they are creating a climate hostile to freedom and free expression. That their view is still free to be expressed, is in harmony with the climate of free expression without intimidation. That they are stopped from actual intimidation, implied or direct, is also consistent with the aim of creating that political climate. The political/cultural climate in which reactionary tendencies thrive, is of no use to us, and is harmful. Let them have their view, and their verbal point to make, and their pamphlet, but let us oppose and when necessary, actively stop intimidation, implied or direct threats, humiliation, or attacks. For example, people should be able to criticize groups and states, whether considered Arab or Jewish, without resorting to either anti-Arabic or anti-Muslim bigotry, or anti-Semitism, or the typical blood-libel and global conspiracy scapegoating tactics that are so common in propaganda throughout history. Opposing a nation or nations, may be similar to nationalistic myopia; i.e., it can be just as bad to be demonically negative towards nations, whether focused on a few or just one scapegoat, as it is to be uncritically fanatic in support of one's own country. If someone resorts to encouraging such bigotry or fueling reactionary tendencies, they need to be exposed and clearly argued against. If they change their minds, great. But they need to be actively fought, in whatever manner that is tactically appropriate and effective. Fight for a political/cultural climate that assists us and those we are in solidarity with.
Which side are you on: Clarity is only possible when we recognize the vast gulf between two basic sides. On one side are those who have great amounts of power, and who abuse that power, the political reactionaries and demagogues who scapegoat through bigotry and require a climate of intimidation in order to exist and thrive, and admitted authoritarians. We have no interest in supporting or helping that other side, and are inherently opposed. On the other side is basically everyone else, with particular emphasis on the little guy, of whatever race or religion, whatever sexual orientation or gender, of whatever nationality or ethnic group. This side we are naturally allied with, and should seek increased solidarity with, and should clarify our common interests and tactics. When our side is confused and disempowered, we lose. When the climate is one of exchange of ideas, however unpopular, we gain. When the climate is intimidation by bullies and bigots and authoritarians and the very powerful, we are quite a bit more limited in how we can work together to further our own interests, and some of us become confused or distracted, in imitation of these reactionaries, bigots, or bullies. We can work to be less like them. We have been socially engineered to fall into their hands, but we can change that. We just need to know what side we are on, and remember that our own words and deeds have an effect, when governments cave in as compromised allies at best, and when certain tactics make us more vulnerable to our natural enemies. Fight for OUR SIDE.
© 2003, by the author.
Comments? newsuneed@yahoo.com
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
|
| |
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time.
We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive.
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. |
Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |
|
|
