November 26, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Censorship, Chilling Effect, or just Freedom of Association?
Goodness! The blogosphere is up in arms about Rittenhouse Review's attempted secondary blogroll boycott of LGF -- or rather, Steven Den Beste's critique of same.
The heart of RR's argument:
I can no longer in good conscience include on the Rittenhouse Review’s blogroll any weblog that has provided a permanent blogroll link of its own to the site known as “Little Green Footballs” or “LGF.”It is with great regret and considerable lament that I have adopted this position -- or been forced to adopt this position -- as I am normally a passionate advocate of an author’s right to choose his associates and to establish and maintain her own chosen associations.
However, it has become painfully clear, to the extent it wasn’t already, that the hosts of LGF, while preciously coy about their own political persuasions, all too willingly and not without satisfaction have allowed their site to become a vile cesspool of racism, bigotry, prejudice, ignorance, and hate.
The heart of Den Beste's argument:
In essence, you have no obligation to associate with people like that. You have no obligation to in any way help them spread their opinions. But you should not attempt to actively suppress them, to actively work to try to prevent them from expressing their point of view. In part that means you should not attempt to use the power of government to persecute them, but it also means you should not attempt to coerce others to join you, except through the power of argument on the basis of the issues. Where you cross the line is when you do anything which works to prevent others from making up their own minds.Translated into modern terms and choosing an example, it would go like this: if you hate the Nazis, you should not link to their web site. If you find others who do link to the Nazis, you can send them mail and try to convince them that the Nazis are despicable and that the link should be removed on that basis. But when you go beyond that, and try to use means not related to the issues (e.g. threatening a boycott of the person's business) then you've crossed the line. You've ceased to try to deal with the issues, and moved into attempts to suppress information to prevent others from even being exposed to the issues. That's where disapproval ends and censorship begins.
Mill differentiates between not helping others find opinions of which you disapprove (which he thinks is acceptable) and actively working to prevent them from accessing those opinions (which he condemns).
RR is completely justified in not linking to LGF. RR is completely justified in attempting to convince others that LGF is not worth linking to. But with this step, RR is moving beyond that to attempt to use a level of direct coercion which I don't consider acceptable.
Den Beste also makes fun of Rittenhouse Review's template, which I think detracts from his main argument, but which is also sending RR's defenders into irrational paroxysms of rage. I'm not going to address that issue, because frankly I haven't any high moral ground to stand on in the matter of template design, or for that matter, cluttering posts with distracting side comments.
But what about freedom of expression? what about standards of decency. Most importantly, it seems, what about meeeeeee?
First, no one is arguing that Rittenhouse Review hasn't the right to stage such a boycott. They're arguing about whether RR ought to stage such a boycott. RR's defenders are trying to force their opponents to apply the very stringent standards of argument that we use to determine what absolute rights we believe people have, such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. This is silly. No one is arguing, I think, that what Rittenhouse Review is doing is beyond the pale, only that it's a bad idea -- and argument which requires much looser standards of proof.
So, is it a bad idea? On the one hand, freedom of association is precious, and although some people would disagree with me, I think the forceful expression of revulsion against ideas we find repulsive is an important part of the marketplace of ideas; it keeps polite people from turning over the public square to loud wingnuts who think child pornography should be a civil right and certain ethnic groups are natural slaves, or whatever current vileness passes for thought among the dark places of the intellectual world.
For example, I do not subscribe to any newspaper that carries Ted Rall cartoons. I am sufficiently appalled by his callous and juvenile treatment of the WTC widows that I decline to have even a tiny fraction of my custom go to support his continuing imprecations. Am I limiting the marketplace of ideas? In one sense, yes. In another sense, I am contributing to it, by expressing in the most effective way my disapproval of the particular ideas Ted Rall represents. Or rather, of the way he chose to represent them. I think there are arguments to be made about the relative compensation of WTC families and other disaster victims, of the media treatment of the subject, and other sensitive issues surrounding 9/11. I just don't think that the way to discuss these issues is to make nasty jokes about the families. So one can argue that by enforcing the social norm of confining arguments to ideas rather than personalities, I am in some way enhancing rather than taking away from the public discourse. In my own exceedingly tiny way, I mean.
So leaving aside grand, sweeping questions of cosmic right or wrong: does Rittenhouse Review's action add to, or detract from, the free interplay of ideas? To some extent, obviously, that depends on whether or not you agree with LGF. But one of the hallmarks of liberal thought is the recognition that it is extremely dangerous to decree which subjects are arguable and which are sacred totems that may not bequestioned. To the extent that Rittenhouse Review's action is based on content rather than tone -- and given the tenor of the blogroll, I find it hard to make a cogent argument that Rittenhouse Review's objection is primarily to the tone of the LGF commenters -- it is detrimental to the liberal interaction of ideas.
Moreover, it seems that Rittenhouse Review is not merely trying to express their disapproval of LGF. The intent, however unlikely to be successful, seems to be to prevent anyone from reading the ideas on LGF. As Den Beste points out in his essay, the nature of web traffic is that for a site to get significant traffic, much of it must be pushed there via links from other sites; thus, an attempt to get a website delinked is in essence an attempt to prevent the expression of the ideas on the site.
This is not the best way to ensure the triumph of the truth. Certainly, Rittenhouse Review has no obligation to send its readers anywhere it believes that the writing is offensive or the ideas are wrong. For example, I do not have a permalink to Rittenhosue Review. Trying to ban those ideas, however, by keeping everyone from linking to the site, does not advance the search for truth. Ideas which are shoved off into a ghetto populated only by the like-minded do not die; they fester. If Rittenhouse Review believes that LGF's ideas are wrong, a better strategy would be to bring the ideas into the light and expose their untruth, rather than trying to keep the Faithful from ever encountering them.
It is not fair, of course, to say that such cocooning is endemic only to the right or the left. But a propos of nothing in particular, I note that the much-excoriated right-wing of the Blogosphere, supposedly the civil-rights-hating heirs of John Ashcroft, have responded in classical liberal fashion -- not by attempting to ban Rittenhouse Review, but by vigorously opposing the actions of which it disapproves.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 26, 2002 4:02 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksIt's a shame, really. Rittenhouse Square is such a nice place.
I disagree with Jane and Steven den Beste, though I could be misterpreting. It sounded to me as though Steven claimed that it is a crime to organize a boycott, and that the social value of (intellectual) diversity outweighs the the individual right to free speech.
A boycott -- including its cyber-equivalent on the web of de-linking people -- combines freedom of speech and freedom of association. You encourage people not to deal with someone, and, if they agree, they refrain from dealing with (or, in blogosphere terms, linking to) that person.
That is not censorship. That is not "banning" someone's speech, as you suggest. It is simply exercising the right of self expression ("we should all shun Little Green Footballs") and the right to link to whoever you want on your web site.
Boycotting is a way for civilized people to effect change without using coercion. I think it is a tactic freedom-loving people should support, even if we disagree with particular boycotts.
Boycotting is basically a trade ("I don't like your behavior, so until you change your ways you don't get the benefit of my patronage, linkage, etc.) and so fits naturally into the marketplace of ideas. People who don't agree with the boycott don't have to go along with it, and they are free to link to the boycotted site as much as they please.
In blurring the distinction between a boycott and ACTUAL censorship--getting some authority to forbid speech outright--you make it more likely that people will increasingly turn to state coercion to effect change, because they won't see any distinction between using force to achieve your ends and using non-coercive means like trade and persuasion.
But no one said it was censorship. The question is whether this boycott helps or hurts the free exchange of ideas that is the bedrock of liberal society. I would argue that it hurts, insofar as it is successful, by limiting the interchange of ideas between two groups with opposing points of view.
It's also not a boycott, but a secondary boycott -- "I'll boycott you unless you boycott them" which is, to the extent that it is successful, much more coercive than a primary boycott.
The amusing part is that RR's grumpitude is excited not by the content of LGF, but by comments stimulated by that content, posted by spectators with an unlimited number of axes to grind. RR wants those comments suppressed. In effect, the boycott is like preventing graffiti by removing the building it's sprayed on.
Matt writes:
It sounded to me as though Steven claimed that it is a crime to organize a boycott, and that the social value of (intellectual) diversity outweighs the the individual right to free speech.
Then you misread his post in its entirety.
It's not a boycott, that's the thing. A boycott is fine--- threatening to pull a link because it links to someone else goes beyond that into an attempt to coerce other blogs into delinking. It's trying to create a blacklist by threat of negative consequences (I don't want to say force, cause damn, it's just a link). It's trying to stigmatize everyone who associates with LGF. It's an attempt to create a blacklist.
The proper course for RittenHouse would be to sign up people to delink to LGF, campaign for that, but without threatening to blacklist anyone who refuses.
That would be Den Beste's arguement. I pretty much buy it.
Jane writes:
But no one said it was censorship.
Jane, you quoted Steven as writing:
"But when you go beyond that, and try to use means not related to the issues (e.g. threatening a boycott of the person's business) then you've crossed the line. You've ceased to try to deal with the issues, and moved into attempts to suppress information to prevent others from even being exposed to the issues. That's where disapproval ends and censorship begins.
Um, how can you be any more explicit than that? He's saying a boycott is equivalent to censorship, and it sounds as though he is saying it's something the state should forbid.
It's just another way of arguing diversity is so important it should trump the rights of others to speak and link to whomever they want -- though it's certainly surprising to see that argument coming from him.
Toxic writes:
It's not a boycott, that's the thing. A boycott is fine--- threatening to pull a link because it links to someone else goes beyond that into an attempt to coerce other blogs into delinking. It's trying to create a blacklist by threat of negative consequences (I don't want to say force, cause damn, it's just a link). It's trying to stigmatize everyone who associates with LGF. It's an attempt to create a blacklist.
This strikes me as a very flimsy argument, not much different from the old socialist routine that the worker is being coerced because if he stops working, his boss won't pay him.
The underlying assumption is that people are docile sheep, incapable of making up their own minds and totally dependent on one source for employment (or blog reading). If the Rittenhouse Review (or even Instapundit and Sullivan) decides to blacklist someone, that's it. Free speech is over. The Working Man starves in the street, never once thinking he might find employment elsewhere.
It's odd that pro-capitalists like Jane and Steven, and some in this comments forum, look at the marketplace of ideas the same way socialists look at the real marketplace: as if one source controls everything, with the masses being too dumb and brainwashed to find competing sources.
I was gonna chime in here and point out that people are getting way too serious about this issue. It's not like we're gonna have a Bill of Rights burnin' down in front of the VFW memorial 'cause RR doesn't want to be contaminated by LGF's view. Hey, it's only blogs! Time to get over ourselves.
But then Matt chimed in.
Whatever, guys. Have at it.
James
Good point James. I think we are on the same wavelength -- I find the "blacklist" idea laughable, not alarming. I don't understand why anyone would, and it's (slightly) alarming to see people castigate the free and non-violent choice of a guy running a private blog as censorship.
Don't get me wrong. He can do what he wants, even his semi-coercive thing. I was just trying to clarufy what I thought Den BEste was saying. It is an attempt to create a blacklist, IMHO. I would also say that he is free to do that. Just that it might not be the best idea. I think it's slightly scummy, but eh. Not like I'd even heard of Rittenhouse review before today.
Honestly, the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. But it is the cause du jour of the blogosphere, so I thought I'd drop my two cents in.
WEll, yeah, it is laughable. But I don't think my idea is so far off, as much as it's a really lame attempt on his part. He's probably not sitting at his computer plotting who to ban, but if it were to really take off, it would create sites that, if you linked to them, would mean that you would get cut off by a large number of people. You associate yourself with LGF, suddenly a number of sites won't like to, some because they don't like what LGF stands for (which is fine) and some because they are afraid of getting delinked themselves (which would happen if they maintained a link to a site that maintained a link to LGF) and so on.
Which is pretty much a blacklist, as far as I can tell.
It won't work, but that's not the point really.
I think it's kind of like googlebombing. I was behind that movement, and ultimately, I regretted it. Done once, it's funny and smart. Done a hundred times, and you've seriously damaged the value of the information system.
Similarly, this particular boycott is trivial. But if the practice were to become widespread (and such things do happen -- witness "fisking") -- it would damage the blogosphere. I'm not arguing that this is The End of the World As We Know It -- just a bad idea. I mean, I blog on the people in my token booth sometimes. Not everything I write is life or death.
Have to join the “way too serious” camp. The level of scrutiny, the level of dissection, is a touch reminiscent of the great spats among various communist factions over what Marx said or meant when he said something not quite clear (or maybe a Monty Python spoof of those spats). Is RR’s behavior coercive? Heck, yes, though in a tiny way. Is that unusual in normal social discourse? Nope. If I don’t like the tone you use with me, I find something else to do till you talk nice. If you mind being without my attention, you'll sweeten your tone. That's coersion.
Never mind censorship (though I mind it very much), where does this “should” question come from? Should he be doing this? It’s his web log, for crying out loud. His communications with those who run other web logs are his own. Linking or not linking is his decision.
By the way, can somebody clear up my thinking on “libertarianism”? So Jane not only engages in a “should he or shouldn’t he” debate about RR’s behavior, but takes up a sizable chunk of real estate on her own site to pitch this notion that there might be a set of standards that “we” should maintain to which “he” should adhere. Is that a libertarian sort of notion? Not making fun. I really don’t know. Is liberty from the intrusions of government employees the only liberty from intrusion by that libertarians cherish?
Finally, it is pretty clear that dear old Janey cannot help herself. "It is not fair, of course..." Everybody has to be on one side of the liberal/conservative line. Every issue (vegetarianism?) has to be compared to a liberal/conservative dicotomy. Every issue is a chance to make some observations, apparently badly skewed by confirmation bias (lefties always do bad stuff more than righties), and offer them as quasi-empirical statements. The only relief is when libertarian views differ from conservative view, so a pox on liberals and conservatives alike. Take a weekend. Think through this Rush-Limbaugh-like relish in skewering (your image of) liberals at every turn. It just cannot be a healthy way to deal with the world. Aside from this one annoying habit, you site is much fun.
Finally, it is pretty clear that dear old Janey cannot help herself. "It is not fair, of course..." Everybody has to be on one side of the liberal/conservative line. Every issue (vegetarianism?) has to be compared to a liberal/conservative dicotomy. Every issue is a chance to make some observations, apparently badly skewed by confirmation bias (lefties always do bad stuff more than righties), and offer them as quasi-empirical statements. The only relief is when libertarian views differ from conservative view, so a pox on liberals and conservatives alike.
So what, so long as she refrains from enrolling in the Broad-Brush School of Painting Technique?
To a certain extent the human mind is trained to understand contrast -- in light, in sound, in reasoning, etc. Understanding an issue fully requires not only understanding what 'it is,' but what 'it is not,' and WHY 'it is not.'
I'm not quite a libertarian, but insofar as I fit the label, I do not fall into the "we should all do exactly what we please all the time" school of libertarian thought. There are things that aren't good for the community, for which the community has the right to express dismay. I think this is one of those things. However, I draw the line at expressing dismay. The coercive, distinctly non-libertarian response would be to threaten retaliation: I'll delink RR and anyone who changes their links in response to his threat, or who links him. That would be not just unduly coercive, but really, really stupid.
As for the rest, I agree with the conservative side more than I agree with the liberal side. I am therefore more likely to find the liberal side risible and worthy of skewering. Also, because of my own views the liberal side is more likely to have said nasty things to or about me, or people I respect, as RR has done, which doesn't improve my image of them. For example, RR's extremely irresponsible use of the word plagiarism about a professional journalist who had quoted 4 words from a popular song without attribution, does not commend to me either their sense or their goodwill.
On the other hand, I think you'll rarely find me making statements along the lines of "conservatives are honest, true, and clever, while liberals are low, dishonest, and stupid", because such statements are idiotic. I think that people who take the opposing side of many issues to mine are wrong, and in my opinion, often guilty of a stubborn resistance to examining empirical evidence and thinking realistically about results, as in health care or the environment. The opposite side to mine is the liberal side: "we can halt global warming with minor adjustments in lifestyle"; "we can all have top-quality health care at bargain basement prices if we just find the right magic formula". I will continue to ridicule these points of view, and the kind of thinking it represents. I will also continue to ridicule conservatives who engage in wishful thinking about the extent of global warming or the ability of private charity to substitute for public. All you have to do, liberal or conservative, to get on my good side is agree with me. ;-)
Comments are Closed.