As I make my way forth and back across Sydney ten times a week, in addition to taking the train I make the last part of my journey by bus. I like everyone else who rides the bus, am subject to whatever whims that the bus driver has for our collective listening pleasure. Sometimes this is various kinds of music and sometimes this is various kinds of talk radio.
This week on the radio, I was on the bus and the political pronouncements of Professor Peter Potatopuncher¹ powerfully pierced the airwaves. He'd mentioned that he had been 'cancelled' by St.Hubris University². He attributed being cancelled to wokeness gone mad and claimed some radical leftist Marxists had infiltrated the university. Now when I think of radical leftist Marxists, I think of skateboarding dudes wearing Vans shoes and yelling "Cowabunga, seize the means of production, dudes.³" I was then assured by the parade of people who called that Professor Peter Potatopuncher was right and that people should have the right to free speech.
The punchline to this whole affair happened just before 08:30am when a spokesperson for St.Hubris University² came on the radio and said that Professor Peter Potatopuncher's lecture series had been moved to a smaller venue after the event had been vastly undersubscribed and they wanted to bring everyone closer together. This was then met with more ranting from Professor Peter Potatopuncher before the radio station went to the news.
I suspect that the so-called culture wars which apparently are going on, are nothing more than what has been happening since the beginning of time. At this particular moment the loudest yelling coming from those people who are demanding free speech, appear to those people who have discovered that one of the things that the internet did was actually democratise public discourse and I suspect that they do not like it. How dare the marginalised, the poor, the plebs, and any of the great unwashed masses who as little as 200 years ago didn't any rights at all, dare to use their voices. The counter to those people who are speaking up and who would have previously had no voice at all, is to yell loudly and longly (and quite frankly some of the most stupid rubbish I have heard).
One of the paradoxes of people crying out for freedom, is that the people who genuinely need it and are crying out for it are often denied it; while those people who want to use the concept of freedom as some kind of banner to wave are often the very people who would deny both freedom and dignity to others. The unwritten truth is that 'freedom' as a central rallying cry, is also intertwined with that other cloaked concept of power and who wields it. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to speak of freedom without responsibility and who is already in a position of relative power.
I do not believe in the absolute right to free speech. This is because I do not believe in any absolute right to anything. A right to do something, with no reference to law whatsoever and with no consequences at law, means that harm is done to other people, who then have no remedy. An absolute right to free speech with no limits for things like defamation, racism, sexism, harassment, consistently leads to injury of other people. If those things are allowed to be repeated often enough, they become people's internal truths and it should also be self-evident that such a situation leads to injury and death of other people. The pen, the tongue, the radio, the television, the internet, can all be weaponised to cause harm to people and to pretend otherwise is deliberate ignorance.
The obvious question which stems from this is who gets to decide where those limits lie. Law springs forth from two main sources. Firstly legislatures, to whom which we as citizens should rightly have franchise in. Secondly judges, of whom the best examples are those who apply and interpret the law justly, fairly, and without fear or favour. Thirdly some kind of morality, although it should be said that morality is often set aside if it is inconvenient to personal advantage. In fact, if I were to design the perfect law system, then there wouldn't be open plan courts but rather, courts where the appellants and respondents would be in separate rooms and unable to see either each other or the judge and where all names would be anonymised. While that sounds horrific, it does mean that judges who are just as prone to perpetrating defamation, racism, sexism, and harassment as the rest of us, wouldn't be able to weaponise them as much if they also had no idea who was before them. Justice should be blind; it frequently is not.
With regards to deciding the outcome of the application of law, the perfect ideal is The Man On The Lilyfield Tram or The Lady On The Burwood Bus. These people are the theoretical embodiment of some standard reasonable person. In determining what is just and proper, the guidelines for those in charge must be consistent with both the Case Law and Common Law which has gone before and the principles of justice and equity which are set before them. Failure to do this does happen (so let's not pretend that it does not) and because it happens, faith in the system is undermined. Even so, this does not mean that the system should be ignored because by virtue of being empaneled by the Crown to administer justice, law courts carry the weight and force of the monopoly on violence which only the state possesses.
However, this is not to do with the issue of the law and legislation imposing limits. The issue of censorship at law is a public question, since those limits are discussed and argued over in parliaments. I think that the issue of censorship at law is best summed up by opinion as published in James v Commonwealth (1936).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/UKPCHCA/1936/4.html
"'Free' in itself is vague and indeterminate. It must take its colour from the context. Compare, for instance, its use in free speech, free love, free dinner and free trade. Free speech does not mean free speech; it means speech hedged in by all the laws against defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth; it means freedom governed by law."
- James vs Commonwealth of Australia 1936
This confirmed that free speech as a concept exists. It also confirmed that there should be just and reasonable limits imposed upon said free speech and given that unfettered free speech with no limits consistently leads to injury of other people, it also follows that it is reasonable that parliaments should discuss and argue the case for where those limits lie.
I have no doubt that if I were to come to your house and teach your children what all the swear words are and how to use them, or instruct them in how to bash holes in your walls with a sledgehammer, or tell them fun ways to poison other people, then you would be quite rightly horrified. Very obviously, you have the right to impose your own limits to free speech within the confines of your house; especially if the intended speech is designed to pose a contingent risk of harm to dignity, decorum, property and person. St.Hubris University as a private institution not only has that same right but a legal duty of care towards its students and staff.
Of course St.Hubris University must comply with the law but the question of Professor Peter Potatopuncher and St.Hubris University has to do with the university's own rules about what is and what is not acceptable on the grounds of its premises. They have not actually told him what is and isn't acceptable and certainly haven't prevented him from speaking. They have moved him to a smaller venue and he has kicked up a stink.
When it comes to the issue of "cancel culture", I actually have my doubts as to whether or not cancel culture actually exists. Everyone who I can think of that has claimed to be 'cancelled' usually does so in the employ of a very big media firm and has a very big bully pulpit from which they can yell to millions that they are 'cancelled'. Demonstrably you are not cancelled if you are standing on a platform and broadcasting your thoughts and opinions to the world; especially via print, radio and television. When John Coffeestain¹ (MP for West Banana²) of the Impressive Party² goes on 2XX, 3YY, 4WW, 5GG, and other assorted stations in the SuperBig Radio Network², goes on Big News on cable TV, and has an opinion piece published in BigMedia² newspapers up and down the country, then he is hardly 'cancelled'.
What might be happening is if someone has said something ghastly and awful and repeatedly done so, and found that the institutions and firms which have imposed some kind of cooling effect, have themselves come under some kind of consequence. You can hardly be said to be cancelled if there is a campaign by people to boycott the advertisers of the companies who want to put their names and advertising BigMedia vehicles. This is merely the economic consequence of John Coffeestain saying something ghastly and awful. You can hardly be said to be cancelled if a university does not want you to speak there because you have offended half of the student body and half of the staff by saying something ghastly and awful. I note that the same people who vote for John Coffeestain are just as likely to fire someone who works in a badly paid job, for daring to take a toilet break.
Granted, there is something to be said about the circumstances by which something said has caused offence to someone else but for someone to face the consequences, usually means that they have said something ghastly and awful on a repeated basis. After following the links from BigMedia's website to the things that Professor Peter Potatopuncher, I would have come to the same conclusion as St.Hubris University. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no obligation to buy something ghastly.
In this particular case though, St.Hubris University couldn't find enough takers who were willing to buy the ideas that Professor Peter Potatopuncher peddled and moved his small group to a smaller venue. I do not think that someone has been 'cancelled' if they've been moved to a smaller place. That's not cancel culture, that's a market solution.
¹not his real name.
²also not its real name.
³from what I have learned of the beardy one himself, he might have said something similar to this effect before starting a bar fight in London.
No comments:
Post a Comment