Tag Archives: Free speech

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH.

17 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH.

Tags

, , ,

( Seven minute read)

Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like, about whatever you like, whenever you like.

This has never existed nor will it.

Every word written or spoken, has a consequence whether you like it or not.

It is through speaking and listening, and reading that human beings become who they are.

Whatever you think about free speech, social media networks are promisingly now to be the custodians of free-spoken, censorship-resistant and crowd-curated content, free of corporate and political interference.

But do they live up to this promise?

As there is no central point of failure, all of these plugged-in entities must agree on the contents of the ledger. There’s no central point of censorship. in fact, many decentralised networks in recent years have been developed in response to moderation practices.

But what content is being monetised and who benefits?

With no single arbiter in charge of moderating content or banning problematic users it’s almost impossible for any single node in the network to meddle with the ledger without the updates being rejected.

It isn’t a new phenomenon for speech to be controlled by corporations — the average person has a far greater likelihood of getting a message out to people today than they did before the Internet — but now the same handful of companies control speech everywhere.  This includes platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube, but we’ve also seen drastic actions taken by web hosting companies like Amazon (as with Parler), or payment service companies like Mastercard and Visa.

There are always malicious people, such as violent extremists, terrorists and child pornographers, who should not be allowed to post at will. So in practice, every decentralised network requires some sort of moderation. But in the 21st century, when fewer and fewer companies have oligopolies over avenues of user-submitted speech, these restrictions have shifted from a free-speech issue to one of corporate control. As such, each server sets its own rules.

They have the power to disable, silence or suspend user access and even to apply server-wide moderation.

Braking these rules result in an immediate user ban and removal of the content. If a user wants to appeal a decision, the verdict comes from a randomly-selected jury of users. But since all content is recorded on the blockchain, it continues to be accessible to those with the technical know-how to retrieve it raising a host of moral and legal obligations which are unavoidable.

It’s not difficult to see how ratcheting up platform liability could cause even more vital speech to be removed by corporations whose sole interest is not in “connecting the world” but in profiting from it.

One of the reasons that this issue is so difficult to solve is that our interests in freedom of speech usually do not extend to speech by the other side.

Is it indeed the case that we as a society cannot tolerate intolerance, lest that very intolerance destroy us?

Or should we only restrict speech when it violates others’ liberties.?

As for platforms, they know what they need to do, because civil society has told them for years. They must be more transparent and ensure that users have the right to remedy when wrong decisions are made. Most important, they should ensure that the decisions they make about speech are in line with global human rights standards, rather than making the rules up as they go.

Down the centuries people have died for the sake of free speech. Problematic language, including hate speech, disinformation, and propaganda have been around throughout human history.

But, in recent decades, they have been amplified, and, most would agree, fundamentally transformed by the advent of the internet and the rise of social media.

Triggered by the evolution of our newest technology of communication, call into question the whole edifice of freedom of speech and press. Most powerful communications technology magnifies these harms exponentially, beyond anything we have encountered before. Some argue that, if it is left unchecked, the very existence of democracy is at risk.

The right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Traditionally, freedom of speech has been justified as necessary for democratic government and as an essential individual right.

Your voice matters.

You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express these opinions in peaceful protests. It is central to living in an open and fair society; one in which people can access justice and enjoy their human rights.

The problem.

Governments have a duty to prohibit, hateful, inciteful speech, but many abuse their authority to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalizing freedom of expression. This is often done in the name of counterterrorism, national security or religion.

On the other hand government can’t censor or restrict expression, just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Shared beliefs, diminish, economic, social and political decisions cannot be made by a society without increased freedom of expression.

Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.  For example artistic freedom.

You don’t feel free to speak if you are going to be shouted down or subject to torrents of abuse.

There used to be a simple restriction of free speech, it was not permitted to incite hatred or violence.

What is free speech?

I think that no society has or could have complete freedom of speech.

I define free speech specifically as being able to say whatever you like without punishment from the state.

Freedom of speech means that the government may not punish you for speaking your mind.

Free speech is a two way thing and declining to engage in an action, rather than being compelled not to, means choice = freedom.

Free speech does differ between societies is a fundamental point, especially in light of recent events.

There is no conception that captures all of our intuitions about things we are and aren’t free to say; leaving us all free to say absolutely everything we want. In the end all societies can only choose to protect some speech, while necessarily banning others—whether through the law or social pressure—to achieve that goal.

For example we allow people to be rude or mean on Twitter, we allow friends to tell their friends they respect them less when they’ve said things they don’t like.

It’s fine to say that the words ‘free speech’ just mean some or other conception, e.g. the libertarian conception.

If so, I don’t think the concept ‘free speech’ is useful as a way of thinking about experienced freedom in speech.

Patterns of speech we (i.e. our laws and courts) decide what counts, as threats, incitement, harassment, abuse, hate speech, and so on, are not permitted. In practice this means stuff like racist speech is forbidden, homophobic and sexist speech is becoming forbidden, as well as all the obviously unpleasant harassment and abuse mentioned above.

On our modern values, these older prohibitions seem silly whereas current prohibitions stop genuinely dangerous speech.

Democracy and free speech are both overrated, both needlessly promote a cycle of collective competition of popularity and productivity and demote personal independence and responsibility, paralyzing academic and political exchange in multiculturalism societies.

There is no coherent, cohesive thing we can point to and call ‘free speech’.

Freedom of expression in the age of the internet––communication without borders––is a frequent subject of debate both on a political and legal level. However, the theoretical underpinnings have generally been confined to legal and philosophical analysis which are not entirely satisfying, because they cannot explain freedom of speech beyond the individual.

People have a right to information that affects their lives. Freedom is also the freedom to take the consequences.

It ultimately comes down to simply living our lives to our choosing.

“If you can pollute the physical environment, you can pollute the cultural and mental environment”.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Advertisement

Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection. New questions arise and old ones return.

11 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection. New questions arise and old ones return.

Tags

This post does not condone any action that expresses its self in the murder of Innocent people anywhere in the world.

My interest here is what it is we think freedom of speech is and what principles need to be in place to ensure an individual’s right to freedom of opinion and expression, and why? Where do we draw the line?  Do we need to?

It is imperative that countries allow freedom of expression and speech in the media, Internet and on the radio to maintain a successful country economically, socially, politically, and to eliminate any dangerous.

If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dated 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976  then no one’s liberty will be secure.  All  theses rights are “indivisible.

The repugnant lost of Life in France once again shows that ours is a world rife with interlocking systems of oppression that serve to harm groups of people based on criteria such as gender, sexuality, disability status, economic status, race, ethnicity, and religion.

The path to freedom is long and arduous. Many people suffered along the way, but the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute.

On the other hand the right to express one’s thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential.

Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself — and as such, deserves society’s greatest protection.

These days there are many shadows where freedom resided other than in speech books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies, press, cartoons, media, such as symbolic speech in works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances not to mention being online.

The anonymity of the internet allows people to express their opinions without being pre-judged”. Anonymity gives power – it can offend, but it also gives people a voice. It can be extremely helpful for activists – it can provide a platform for things that need to be said. However, some feel it contradicts the self-exposure purpose of social networks and it is important to consider who you are talking to in a debate.

Should the Internet be subject to any form of government control?

If you consider that the Internet itself doesn’t give a person a voice, rather it give them the opportunity to use their voice, and for a vast number of users who already use their voices, in terms of stating their thoughts and opinions offline, the internet merely facilitate in a greater way their desire to speak out on matters causing them concern.

In my opinion we should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last.

So can there be or should there be  “Control of the mind”

When you consider that Freedom of Expression (FoE) is an essentially enabling democracy providing a gateway to the realization of many other human rights. The foundation of self-fulfillment. The attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth.

Should we be defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis, ISIS.

In a perfect world, if a person or group of people wished to express their prejudices regarding another group (or groups) of people to society at large, that expression would not matter. The only harms that would come about from such an expression would be the public humiliation, chastisement, and exclusion of the person or group expressing those views by the rest of society.

But we live in a world far from perfect and Freedom of expression is been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home.

It will continue to be so as the eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one’s own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view — even those that are “bad” or socially harmful — should be represented in society’s “marketplace of ideas.”

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if only words are used.

However in today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers.

On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends. In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking. In 2003, in a civil suit brought by a firm dissatisfied with the ranking of Google’s search results, Google asserted that its search results were constitutionally protected speech.

” WHAT DOES “PROTECTED SPEECH” INCLUDE?

In answering this questions speech should only be punished if it presented “a clear and present danger” of imminent harm.  Another words pure speech characterized by  hate and not “Symbolic speech” — nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas.

To give protection to commercial speech (like advertisements) is to give computers the rights intended for humans. To elevate our machines above ourselves.

Pornography is another one of those issues that borderline between free speech and sensibility.

The amount of speech that can be curtailed in the interest of national security over used the concept of “national security” to shield itself from criticism, and to discourage public discussion of controversial policies or decisions.”right to know” is essential to its ability to fully participate in democratic decision-making.

There is a clear need for transformative change in order to achieve a human rights-based sustainable.

The time has come to stop using the freedom of speech as a hazard net and start modifying our racist and hateful behavior. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression.

The danger is that freedoms are supposed to protect citizens from authorities, not the politicians from the citizens.

If we the people are to be the masters of our fate and of our elected government, we must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Government can limit some protected speech by imposing “time, place and manner” restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination — and that is unconstitutional.

Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny, fueled by expressions of intolerance and non-acceptance.

Should flag burning be a crime?

What about government or private censorship of works of art that touch on sensitive issues like religion or sexuality?

Hate speech is defined as “speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected. Libelous statements” “obscene” material fighting words … which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” are not protected

In taking on a role of international ambassador for freedom of speech French history unfortunately (like most countries in the world has dark moments when it comes to freedom) is blemished. Indeed any country that trades in Arms in my opinion is unfit to talk about freedom.

The real danger now it that we allow more restrictions to our freedoms. However, ours as I have said  is not a perfect world and there are clear and present dangers.

The problem of intolerance is not endemic to any one country or context.

JE SUIS BOB.

 

 

 

Are there reasonable and legal limits to free expression ?

30 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Are there reasonable and legal limits to free expression ?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

Now this is an interesting and complex question.

Far too big a subject to be addressed by my comparatively little brain or written about in a few hundred words. However we all know that stifling free expression is counterproductive.

So is Freedom of expression still a universal human right?

Is it the 
lynch pin
 of
 democracy?

The Internet is by its very nature border less, but it is still intimately connected to the physical world, and as such to the territories of sovereign nation states.

Therefore, states can significantly influence the free flow of information, expression and free speech.

An open and free Internet is a key means by which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly. However, these freedoms in our present world cannot on one hand be absolute and on the other they have to be absolute.

Freedom of information is a fundamental element of freedom of expression, with the Internet a key instrument for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

This is the Quandary.

Because when you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers.

Is it commercializes something that is not commerceable? And if so is there a compelling argument that computerized decisions should be considered speech?

Computers as you know make trillions of invisible decisions each day.

Gone are the days of waiting for the evening news to present events occurring on the battlefield. Gone are the days of relying on professional journalists, or embedded reporters, to paint the day-to-day picture of the world.

Gone are the days that the Internet was merely an alternative communicative channel.

What will its impact be on free speech?

I believe in the long run it is going to be the down fall of free speech and expression.

Cyberspace today is an important part of living as a private and public individual in the modern world. It is a way of speaking and listening; an essential part of being human, but is it turning into a privatized “wild west”, where individuals’ expressions and information retrieval is not subject to arbitrary restrictions with no judicial review or democratic legitimacy.

Should non human or automated choices be granted the full protection of Free Speech?

Is it time for states to grant these expressions the same protection, which we apply to expressions in the physical world ?

Self-regulation is a dangerous path when applied to public sphere communication.

My answer is –  No Cyberspace should not be allocated such a high status.

Why?

Because Extremists –often claim to speak for whole communities.

Because if we are not careful the potential result is that we get a homogenised, sanitised universal culture that either gives offense to none or is controlled by the most vocal and powerful group whatever the rest of the populace may want or believe.

In July 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Committee confirmed the central role of freedom of expression in human rights, making it clear that it can only be limited in the most exceptional circumstances, and calling for the first time for unrestricted public access to official information.

Now we all know that there cannot be a democratic society without the fundamental right to freedom of expression but the internet is allowing new means for humans to express themselves. Hong Kong as I write is expressing all over social net works its unwillingness to have Beijing puppets put up for election.

Because in today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers. On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends.

In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking,” and should enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Free Speech.

Because the internet connectives which the internet provides to humans today makes it possible for soldiers in Iraq to post their thoughts and reflections regarding an upcoming or recently accomplished mission, to include pictures and video, on a blog in Iraq and within seconds this news from the front can be read by thousands if not millions of people world-wide.

Everyone has the right to associate freely through and on the Internet, for social, political, cultural or other purposes. There are efforts by a number of states including Russia, China and Iran to increase state control of the internet within their territories.

The Internet is a space for the promotion, protection and fulfillment of human rights and the advancement of social justice. While governments have an important obligation in protecting and furthering internet freedom, the very nature of the Internet means that civil society, the private sector and academia also need to be involved in discussions on internet governance not just Governments.

Free speech is essential to a free society because, when you deny people ‘an opportunity to act like normal political parties’, there’s nothing left for them to do but punch your lights out. Just look at what is happening with a culture like ISIS  that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity. It is a barbarous society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast if left alone.

Another growing causes for concern is that diverse voices of the non-religious are either not being heard or are not equally valued: Religious voices are claiming their right to freedom of expression but at the cost of non-religious voices being silenced.

The ability to freely speak your mind is widely seen as a natural right, in other words a government (or any other institution) can’t grant you this right, only take it away. A liberal society is one which is content to call ‘true’ (or ‘right’ or ‘just’) whatever the outcome of undistorted communication happens to be, whatever view wins in a free and open encounter.

If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn’t free at all.

We live, in ‘interesting’ times, from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage.

Within the EU,internet there is no specific (foreign) policy agenda for internet freedom.

So the question I started out with might sound like a fanciful question, a matter of philosophy or science fiction but a world where real, primal, universal rights — like freedom of expression is where I want to live.

Everyone has the duty to respect the human rights of all others in the online environment.

     How about You!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

100 years from now Facebook is going to be full of dead people.

20 Saturday Sep 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on 100 years from now Facebook is going to be full of dead people.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Lets ask the question?

Is Social Media going to turn out as the Ultimate Betrayal.

In a hundred years time there are going to be hundred of thousands on Facebook without any emotions, hundred of thousands of extinct Twitters, hundred of thousands of people linked to the dead, hundred of thousands Google searches never to be repeated, and billions and billions of e-mail that will never contribute to world history.

That’s BIG DATA: ( See previous blog)

Now it’s not possible here to cover all aspects of Social Media so I am going to concentrate on the most popular FACEBOOK.

The first and most important thing to make clear is that FACEBOOK is a Company, a public company for that matter and it has to find ways to become more profitable with each passing quarter.

What concerns me is the increased silence of what it will mean for a public who has no clue of what’s being done with their data.

I want to see users of Social Media have the ability to meaningfully influence what’s being done with their data.

I hate the fact that Facebook thinks it’s better than me at deciding which of my friends’ posts I should see or to suggest he or she wants to be a friend.

That Facebook algorithmically determines which of your friends’ posts you see.

That their everyday algorithms are meant to manipulate your emotions.

What factors go into this? We don’t know,  but it is obvious that they have some algorithm that show the content that people click on the most.

Anyone who clicks on a “like” button is considered to have “liked” all future content from that source. Anyone who “likes” a comment on a shared link is considered to “like” wherever that link points to.  

This is a form corrupt personalization.  They can be taught what to want.

Facebook is making these choices every day without oversight, transparency, or informed consent.

I hate that I have no meaningful mechanism of control on the site.

I also hate the fact that it is generating billions in profit without contributing ( other than taxes) to the relief of world poverty, to the environment problems, and any other Social problem you wish to name.

Yes of course it gives a platform to talk on these subjects only because Facebook wants to keep people on Facebook. It’s in Facebook’s better interest to leave people feeling happier.

The problem is that Facebook is a black box.

Here are a few of the questions to be answered when it comes to Social Media.

A ) Should we be worried that software tracks us through social media?

B) Should postings on social media be considered free speech?

C) How does social media facilitate mass demonstrations (Arab Spring, Occupy Wall street)?

D) Have social networks caused teens to become anti-social in the real world?

E) Should schools ban teachers from interacting with their students on social networks?

F) Does social media encourage democracy?

The term “social networking” does not exclusively belong to digital technology on the Web. On the contrary, social networks had been studied from the beginning of 20th century with the aim to comprehend how the members of a certain community interact and which mechanism can determine the interaction itself.

Social Media is a tool of direct marketing where the customers and consumers have the opportunity to participate in the process of exchange.

 It’s a blurring of work and private life 

Social Media is only just emerging, meaning that codification of acceptable and unacceptable practices has not yet taken place. The ability to collect and analyze information from the past as well as in real-time, as it is generated has far reaching consequences. 

Though it commonly is understood that conversations are generally public and open to viewing by almost anyone. It can have a profound effect on the thoughts, attitudes and beliefs of individuals who have no idea that they are under observation in the first place. 

This is what drives media entities to produce listicals, flashy headlines, and car crash news stories. To manipulate people’s emotions through the headlines they produce and the content they cover, regardless of the psychological toll on individuals or the society they represent.

You might say bull shit.

That technology companies can secretly influence our emotions?

Apparently so.“Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness.”  The question is when does data science become human subjects research? 

”A social network proprietor can engineer emotions for the multitudes to a slight degree”

The Arab Spring as it was called. The recent Vote on Independence in Scotland, President Obama election,  ISIS one beheading. There’s no stable metaphor that people hold for what the news feed is. Emotions are being manipulated all the time, without informed consent, without debriefing. 

Information is being presented and it’s being manipulated [through social media interfaces] by definition.

The reality is, when it comes to studying human interaction or behavior (for profit or scientific glory), it is no more (or less) complicated whether we’re interviewing someone in their living room, watching them in a lab, testing them at the screen, or examining the content they post online.

So the answer the questions posed above:

 A)  YES.

B)   NO.

C)  BY manipulation of Emotions.

D)  YES&NO

E)  YES

F)   NO

 

What do you think? And O! just in case you think this was typed by one of our departed I want to be your friend.

If you e mail me your cannot be sure. The only way is living human contact.

Remember Like me at some point you will be the next person on earth to die.

Then Who or What will own your data? and what’s Social about that.?

 

 

 

,