The Limits of Free Speech

"it's been explicit from the get-go that this is a moderated discussion"
It may have appeared that way, but it's not true - anyone can say what they like here.

I didn't mean to 'play the race card' with the Strange Fruit analogy.

Of course you didn't, Momus, and that's what makes it so uncharacteristically idiotic that you did. You groped for a dramatic example to shore up your point and settled on that one only through a willful disregard for the actual dynamics of the situation.

But so long as you've created the analogy, how about this: would you argue that the Cotton Club was morally obligated to interrupt a Billie Holiday performance to give equal time to a Klansman who had something he wanted to share with the audience?

And by the way, you might be stretching by equating the post in question with an individual's "point of view." I haven't seen the post, but the impression I get was that it contained no identifiable argument or point of view other than deliberate antagonism.

Oh, fuck it! Secrecy only breeds this sort of paranoiac atmosphere. Go ahead and paraphrase the offending post here, since I'm the person it was directed at. Honestly, it can't be any worse than a bad review from Gay Times now, can it? (Helen Love? Ouch!)

The misplaced furour that this "censorship" has brewed is probably about 100 times worse than any flamewar that could possibly have errupted over my so-called "spamming".

Being that I havent actualy read teh offending post I can't comment. But I was a littel scared when some guy on ILM emailed me implying that he wanted to face me in person becasue I didn't agree with his views.Was it a threat? Some regulation is called for. But Again, I would have to read the original post to judge.

Nitsuh: Since you're arguing principles here, I have a question for you: Is there any sort of speech you see as worthy of restriction?

I actually totally agree with (moderator) DG's position above. Remove pointless, long cut and pastes, commercial spam, whatever clogs the board up with boring irrelevancies. On the Momus website I have a guest book, and twice this week I've removed posts which were obviously spam, people posting long lists of records for sale, or links to computer warehouses, placed by spider programs. I think vigilance against anonymous, time-wasting profiteers is valid. I don't think it's valid to, as DG said, 'edit intellectual content', and I think that to argue that the poster has a personal link to Kate is not a good justification for doing so. It's precisely the impersonal attention of callous marketeers which threatens netlife, not the daily rivalries and alliances of community.

Start with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, work your way up through in-person verbal abuse, and let me know where your line is.

Do you see any value in restricting certain forms of speech for the specific purpose of making the discussion as a whole more valuable to those who are interested in it?

The censored comment was on topic, entertaining in a rather vitriolic (I hesitate to say Ortonesque ;-) way, and even, I thought, rather affectionate to Kate. And I think the subsequent conversation has been rather exciting, don't you? It went from the Lollies to Milton.

SOmtimes it seems like Momus comes into the living room just to sprinkle gasoline on the cozy fireplace. Which is of course, his job.

Since Kate requested it, and because ILE is a Professed Haven for Free Speech: “Fuck me it's a stadium tour!!!!Run for the hills pop acts The Lollies are coming. You are a fucking disgrace darling. The real question is will more than 5 people go to any of the venues you are shamelessly plugging. I will be there to heckle [something something forget forget]. Go write a fucking tune...”

Actually, I also think the subsequent discussion has been pretty good. Amazing, crappiness of the original "offending" post, veiled threat or no veiled threat... Hurrah for semi-censorship!!

Did the tail just wank the dog?

Oh, for FUCKS SAKE... talk about secrecy lending something power. From your reaction, I thought that it was some stalkerish nonsense talking about shooting me onstage or something! I've had much weirder threats made in the past.

Kind of a let-down after everything else that has gone on on this thread...

I haven't much liked the resultant debate at all. I suppose this internet forum free speech debate is of some intellectual interest, but it's been played out so many times before (not on this forum, I grant you) that I'm not fantastically thrilled by it. And from a psychological point of view, it takes on this 'big importance' in my mind that has spoilt my enjoyment of ILE for the latter part of the day. On the only other (heavily moderated, in terms of rules, though not deleted posts) forum I have ever enjoyed, one rule was not to complain about mailing list on the list itself. I accept this is impossible to enforce on a non-subscriber based web forum like this, but it certainly saved a lot of boring "Hey - you guys are all smug cliquey jerks and I'll talk about what the hell I like" + resultant argument that just goes round and round in circles and detracts from all other content. These days that community is dominated by poeple who don't interest me much, so I don't really go there anymore, but I has enough respect for the list owner not to badmouth the place there. Now I've found a place that I find invigorating again. I don't wish to see it spoiled by an obnoxious minority. I accept DG's views on moderation. I hope they won't lead to this turning into a no-fun place to be. All this overspill from the ILM argument today makes me feel like it's the beginning of the end, but I'm probably just being oversensitive.

May I just say how much I'm looking forward to being heckled by Ally at Fez, New York, on September 14th at 10.45pm. I will especially enjoy it if she has to pay $400 for a CMJ pass to get in. She will not be ejected from the building unless her catcalls contain boring cut and pastes, spam, or indecent JPEG files.

How dare you sully our good and pure debate on censorship with such blatant and offensive SPAM!!!

yeah go argue about this at ILM! Mark S did what he thought was right! I applaud that. Everything needs some censoring, it's not like posters are being censored left, right and centre! I think most of us at ILe are getting along okay.

Will you come to Kansas City to perform if we serve you actual SPAM?

That was not a personal insult or criticism of Mark S, BTW. Simply an observation that secrecy can be as deleterious to the peace of a community as rampant flame attacks. I don't know if I'd go as far as Nick - I do think that the ability to self monitor and civilly discuss issues such as this is a sign of the health of a forum - but I don't think this has been one of our better ILM/E experiences.

My view is always the minute you threaten to harm someone you no longer can claim free speech

Don't worry Nick, this will all blow over by the end of the week and we'll be back to the usual 'serious'/non-'serious' topics.

DG: Well, I take that back then, I guess. I suppose I just happened to notice very early on that there were "moderators" for the forums, and thus assumed it to be an officially "moderated" space.

Having seen some version of the post's content, well: pulling it was probably not necessary. But I don't see Mark's judgment on that issue as particularly egregious or worthy of too much criticism beyond, "Hey, Mark, you probably didn't need to pull that."

Note: Why wasn't Momus this incensed by pulling the Japanese fecal porn thread? :)

::stuffs fingers into mouth to prevent self from posting facetious and potentially offensive remark, thus relieving the moderators of the need for censorship::

I don't really think Momus answered Nitsuh's questions above. Wasn't the reason for asking to start from fire-in-a-crowded-theater that it provides a sort of baseline for when concern for the safety of others outweighs free speech rights? I think things can get more complicated from there. Sadly it appears Momus might be trampled in such a theater situation, though if the person yelling were selling fire extinguishers too Momus would be all for censoring him.

Also, I find it totally hypocritical that Momus comes down so strongly against people trying to sell you things, when so much of what he posts around here seems to be determined to big up Momus and the Momus image, which I can only think helps sustain his fan base and thus bank account (or perhaps ego). Kate and Ally (huh huh) have criticized each other for 'self-promotion' but I think really they just both have strong online personalities and talk about themselves a lot. Momus seems to push that further by trying to propogate the cult of Momus much as a corporation is always, always, always pushing its brand image.

And finally, I know this is something of a hot-button issue for many people here, but I find it very disenheartening and personally rude when people immediately start talking about fascism just because we're talking about moderating a small internet forum. I don't like fascism either, but it would be nice if people remembered that it is just other people doing the moderation, attempting to negotiate a very problem-filled area - not a bunch of jackbooted Nazis. For christ's sake, people.

Do you reckon that in some darkened corner of the internet, Denis is sitting at his computer laughing at everyone

"Blimey! I've not had this much fun since that time I ordered a pizza to be delivered to the house opposite"

As someone who has had to contend with abusive and/or stalking types before, I'd have to say that there isn't much you can do to stop their stalking tendencies just by deleting a post. I'd rather know what the person said, and in this case, I'm glad the fucker was exposed. I think if something has already been deleted, the person attacked should be the first to know. But such a coward *should* be exposed, confronted, and, in the case of threats, the appropriate authorities notified. I think deletion and/or barring is more appropriate when the posting starts interfering with the general functioning of the group - that disruptive behavior *is* a form of censorship in itself. The saddest thing, though, is when someone posts a load of nasty garbage and no one says anything to counter it. Repeated, unanswered viciousness does eventually have a censorious effect - Usenet is the perfect example of this - it's not exactly an anarchist utopia, is it? There are few groups which I can read anymore because of the number of hysterical, obsessive and vicious contributors to those groups.

On the other hand, Mark S.'s "offense" has been blown out of proportion. It was an isolated judgment call. It's fine to quibble with it, but I think it's a mistake to assign equal weight to an individual's fallible judgment on the one hand, and the nature and scope of corporate / government control on the other. I think philosophical and political issues are being conflated here: they're not the same.

This opens up a load of political / philosophical cans of worms that I'm not sure are appropriate here....

I often agree with my eyes when they alert me that they are actually white blooby blood ball-apples.

(Just read Nitsuh's suggestion that ppl be barred based on their IP numbers alone — and realised this is a brilliant brilliant plan that cuts thru to the core of all truth, which is of course NUMEROLOGICAL [and which of course only I understand]. Excuse me, two consecutive 5s = totally unacceptable in this thread. I'm afraid I can't accept yr post until you find a proxy IP with three or more 7s. No, 8 is NOT a number: it's just 2 x 2 x 2, and that ruling is final. I can and shall wreak justified havoc...!)

Josh: Nitsuh raised some good points, but his 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example was a hoary old cliche. You have to structure free speech, just as you have to structure commerce. What worried me in the original actions of Tom and Mark was that they were protecting the commercial speech but not the commentary.

I'm thinking of collecting a lot of the 'censorship is good' slogans that have come up in these threads and sending them to Falung Gong or someone, to show them the sad truth that 90% of people in the west really don't care about their own or anyone else's free speech and can't be depended upon the help them.

I can only assume educators have stopped explaining the first amendment in American schools and colleges. At some point in the 80s or 90s people who called themselves liberals seem to have decided that allowing free speech is the same as allowing hate speech, or that, as Mark puts it, a free speech position is somehow a free market position.

Kate's big sigh of relief on hearing the content of the post, and her express wish that moderators not try to protect her feelings through misguided chivalry, hasn't made many people change their minds about the original decision to suppress a harmless post either, which is odd. It seems to me a perfect vindication of my arguments throughout.

Only DG spoke sanely about respecting intellectual content. Most others were positively cheering meaningless, random censorship, in a kind of scary 'Let's bomb Bagdhad!' way. Why? Can anyone explain this to me?

I don't think people were advocating random censorship but one particular, very specific instance where censorship was used with good (if possibly ill-advised) intentions.

Random censorship would, perhaps, be quite cool - seeing as how the fact the message was cut has got everyone excited and wondering just what was in it, where as most people would probably have just skimmed over it had it been left in [OK, that's enough. The rest of this silly and abusive post has been deleted. Grow up 'jamesmichaelward']

Mark's final comment back on the thread at ILM: the question of tone and attitude and sinisterness etc etc is just as chilling for — exactly like you say, Clarke — newcomers, or the quiet and shy of mind (who have equally interesting things to say despite being somewhat herbivorous).

Mark has turned his Superman costume inside out. He's now claiming to be the brave protector of shy newbies and herbivores, rather than of Kate, who can stand up to her own flamers, thank you very much.

Does this mean ILM is going to be the Disney Channel from now on? Are we going to have to stop the play every five minutes for announcements, Midsummer Night's Dream-style, that 'this lion, ladies, is just a man in a skin, fear not'?

Scrabbling around for weak minorities, children, newbies or grandmothers to justify suppression of dissent sucks. Come on, Mark, just admit that you were a little trigger happy and tell us it won't happen again and we can all be charmingly rude to each other again.

I didn't see that at all - in fact I saw a number of people who agreed that it shouldn't have been deleted - I count myself among them. They're not stating it as *forcefully*, perhaps because it didn't seem like it involved a great deal of deliberation, and so they're being charitable toward Mark. When a group is entrusted to moderators, these seat-of-the-pants judgment calls are to be expected. The real issue here is whether one disagrees with moderation *in general*. I don't find that realistic, so I'd rather take a more democratic approach to it, and ask that the moderators feel accountable to their readership.

I'm not pro-censorship AT ALL - in fact, I consider myself quite radically libertarian in that regard. I certainly don't buy into any notion of "hate speech", unless you're talking about harassing or threatening speech which is *not* protected by the First Amendment. I'd prefer that moderation be done sparingly. I just wish people could discuss the nature of online discourse, as an extension of public and private spheres of discourse, WITHOUT accusations of constitutional ignorance or oppressiveness. That's just not fair. This is a relatively new technology, y'know? It's not quite so simple.

Nitsuh raised some good points, but his 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example was a hoary old cliche.

Jesus, Momus, I expect better of you! Surely you're aware that (a) it's not a "cliche" but an example drawn U.S. Supreme Court opinion, and more importantly that (b) it's obviousness and uniquity are precisely why I said "Start from 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' and work your way up."

Secondly, you consistently avoid defending precisely the part of your argument that everyone is disagreeing with, which is your apparent belief that this forum should operate based on the same ideals as entire national entities. Based on your previous point, you'd apparently have no problem with Falun Gong "practitioners" doing their excercises in your bedroom. I don't believe that's true, and it's only through sheer dogmatism that you continue to cling to this point without recourse to ever justifying it. I agree with your arguments -- I even agree with you that Mark was a little trigger-happy, even though I don't particularly blame him for it -- but I think you're being particularly stubborn by refusing to even acknowledge that there might be a difference between "free speech" in a public context and "free speech" within an organized "owned" space.

I say this not out of any sort of antagonism toward you, as I've always enjoyed your posts, threads, and music, and still get an odd thrill about the fact that you've performed a song about my previous employer. But your smarmy provocation and deliberate intellectual dishonesty in this discussion are beginning to resemble that of my country's president.

Has anyone read the Maya Angelou book (I think it's ???) where Billie Holliday comes to her house? She sings "Strange Fruit" to Maya's son Guy as a bedtime song, and when Guy asks what a certain line meant she gets very angry. That is the only thing I've ever read about Ms. Holliday. Sometimes in FT they would mention Billie, and I thought it was Ms. Holliday, but I guess it was someone else.

I don't like either of these discussions because it reminds me of my high school newspaper class. One spiteful and needless comment would be edited and the writer would become enraged. Then the rest of the hour would be spent discussing censorship the Big Evil and (even though we'd been over it many times) it could have been a mind- stimulating discussion. But no-one wanted to keep their emotions in check. Just like on the two I Loves. There is nothing I hate more than such needless ball-cutting drama. And I hate censorship!

Oops, the book was called "Gather Together in My Name". Or no wait, it was "Heart of a Woman" One of the two.

Thank you for saving me the trouble of replying with basically the same thing, Nitsuh.

Nitsuh: your smarmy provocation and deliberate intellectual dishonesty in this discussion are beginning to resemble that of my country's president.

Ouch! That really hurts. (By the way, who was the ex-employer I sang about?)

I think you're being particularly stubborn by refusing to even acknowledge that there might be a difference between "free speech" in a public context and "free speech" within an organized "owned" space.

I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum). It's like saying 'I believe in justice, but not for everyone' or 'Charity is fine, but only at Christmas'.

Ouch! That really hurts.

Okay, perhaps the Bush thing was uncalled for.

(By the way, who was the ex-employer I sang about?)

Reckless Records. Although your focus on the Broadway store was unappreciated by those of us at the other locations. :)

I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum).

I guess I don't really buy into the idea that you actually believe that! But if you honestly think that's true, then I trust you'd be perfectly amendable to my hacking your website and amending the front page with the most disagreeable material allowed by law.

And when you attempt to point out that the front page of your site does not constitute a "forum," I'll simply ask who you are to draw such distinctions between a public space and one that you "own," "control," or "moderate."

Actually, fuck your website -- based on your arguments, I hereby demand physical access into your home for the sole purpose of verbally abusing you. No reason my at-large rights to freedom of speech shouldn't be equally applicable to, say, your shower, right?

So if I yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and people are injured or killed in the ensuing mass egress, it's ok somehow because I should have unrestricted 'free speech'? If I am in a position of responsibility and I publicly lie in such a way as to knowingly violate that responsibility (say, I falsify reports of the safety of a new car model), should my speech be protected? If my speech is harrassing to another person, should me speech be protected? If I'm rude and offensive, though originally invited to be present, on someone's private property, are they just to put up with it because my speech is protected? You're the one who earlier intimated that people were ignorant of first amendment rights and constitutional law. If you actually know anything about them, shouldn't you be confronting those problems rather than blithely saying that restricted free speech is nonsensical?

Nick, I'm completely libertarian in my approach to free speech as you well know. Don't ever, ever suggest, even by omission, that I condone censorship, and don't cheapen your argument by dissing the Americans' high school education re. the contents of the Constitution. We learn our rights backwards and forwards in school, then find when we get out that more money = more 'rights' than the average bear. That's one reason why that rich old brilliant exile Gore Vidal can enter a correspondence with McVeigh. A lot of us wind up believing the Bill Of Rights is window dressing for a lot of valid reasons.

I wish the original impulse behind what a crusty old Spectator reader would call PC (which was really making sure you were able in speech to treat diverse people equally in principle) had not been obscured by neo-paternalistic Thought Police of every possible gender. Mark isn't one of these, and he's no censor. Real censors, after all, are so secure in their oppressive powers that they can ignore dissenters, or persecute them like the Falun Gong.

My shower? Ooh Nitsuh, I love it when you talk dirty!

As for the crowded theatre, I'd say it's the job of the fire inspectors to make enough exits that people can escape whatever bloody nonsense people are shouting. That's what theatres are for, shouting nonsense.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

'Art is where you can crash the plane and walk away.' (Eno)

Ditto computers and simulations and representations of all kinds. As Kerry said, if someone means to do you physical harm, censoring the threats isn't going to help you much.

Suzy: the problem with what's now called PC was that it was an attempt to heal the world by healing language. It was a belief that by imposing justice and equality in language you could impose them on the world. In fact, it represented a banishment of liberalism (under Reagan and Bush snr) to the symbolic realm of the universities and media. There they could play at justice-in-language all they liked, without disturbing the actual power structures of the world at all.

But soon even those people realised that they were policing language and limiting its greatest strength: the capacity for modelling other ways of being, for envisioning the world differently. So PC receded, and now we have the more healthy anti-global protests instead. Real political action, back in the realm of political action where it belongs. And language went back to being the free zone it wants and needs to be.

I hate to turn ILE into the Momus Hot Seat, but...I just find this discussion interesting, and so I continue: I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum). It's like saying 'I believe in justice, but not for everyone' or 'Charity is fine, but only at Christmas'.

Well, that's mighty tolerant of you, but that is a philosophy. It's certainly not the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't prevent me from throwing people out of my bar, my backyard, or an internet forum for that matter.

About a year or so ago, there was a fellow preaching with a bullhorn within earshot of my apartment and the apartments and homes of several hundred people. It was Saturday morning, too, and people were still in bed. Were people, and eventually the police, *wrong* in asking him to turn his bullhorn off? Weren't you the one complaining about the intrusion of sounds and music in the public sphere? Isn't that "expression"?

The reason I bring up the bullhorn is this: the man took to bullhorning on a residential street corner because there are so few public spaces where an individual of little means can address his peers. The solution, though, and the one most libertarian in spirit, is to create and/or take back those *public* spaces it's not extending the principles that apply to public discourse to the private sphere. I couldn't give a crap who my neighbor throws out of his backyard - I don't think it necessarily reflects on his views on civil liberties.

Since my attitude towards 'commerce' has been raised here:

ILM started as the discussion board for my Freaky Trigger webzine. If FT has any guiding principle at all, it's the idea that the music listeners experiences as listener *and consumer* are as important as the music being discussed. In other words, you can't shove commerce sniffily off to one side. This isn't the internet of 1995 any more, and more to the point the internet of 1995 wasn't all that good. As I said just now on ILM, we have a category, called "Hype", for these kinds of posts.

I would broadly say that it is OK for regular posters to fill other regular posters in on what they are doing - the definition of 'regular' on ILM should be at the posters discretion. Kate's tour dates fall into the same bracket as DJ Martian's weblog, for me. If you want to post your tour dates, Momus, or Alasdair M or Dave Q or anyone else does, that's fine by me.

My shower? Ooh Nitsuh, I love it when you talk dirty!

Jesus, Nick, I can't believe you're being quite so juvenile about this! If I didn't have some respect and admiration for your actions outside of this thread, I'd suspect you were only doing this for attention.

Look: what's bothering me here is that your level of dogmatism here is approaching that of a twelve year old's, and it's showing in your poor rhetorical choices -- responding to my intentional cliche with "but that's such a cliche" and spouting nonsense about theaters having enough exits to accommodate any level of stupidity. All I want you to admit is this: in private spaces, it is reasonable for the "owner" to set some limits on people's behaviour. This is what allows you to make records without having to let me write arrangements for them; this is what allows me to watch television without having to let you drop by and comment on everything; and this, I'm arguing, is what allows a person to organize a web-based forum in which there are certain ground rules concerning people's contributions.

I only ask that you admit this. You're free to argue that in this instance, censorship was unnecessary; you're free to argue that this forum as whole doesn't need moderation of any sort -- in both instanced, I might be tempted to agree with you. But your evasion and your refusal to admit this basic point -- which is already codified in international law -- is currently striking me as positively infantile.

I'm all for people being considerate and polite, especially when visiting other people's private spaces on invitation. I just don't like the idea of that being codified in law and policed. I think people are capable of working these things out between themselves. I suppose this is what people meant by the 'pub' metaphor, which I might have agreed with if they'd chosen 'cafe' instead, and not elected Mark (to his horror) as bouncing bar staff.

I re-iterate what Milton said about freedom of the press, back when Cromwell was trying to get all books and plays approved by the government: vitue which is untested by exposure to malice, sedition and simply *other ways of thinking about the problem* is no virtue at all.

Serge Gainsbourg: 'Provoke, always provoke. But remember, stay human.'

I detect futility. I think the internet is like a Hydra: cut off on e head and another grows in it's place. You can't censor the internet , and you can't regulate or control it. SOmeone could just email Kate that her bands blows, or email her freinds or make an "I Hate the Lollies " website. ITs already out of control. Take away napster, and a thousand more spring up in it's place.

i aasked for an ilm post to be deleted because it had nothing to do with music, but was also an abusive post that wouldn't even get the time of day here on ile - i don't like censorship, but my thoughts are iI wasn't stopping this guy's voice from being heard - he'd said his shit, enough ppl had read it, he could repost it elsewhere, or probably repost it here, but i don't lose sleep over it...

Well, then. I officially give up on getting Nick to actually reply to my argument or admit what is, in the end, a pretty universally recognized reality.

I'm going to go listen to Ping Pong and remind myself why I generally like this person.

Is being an ass an 'other way of looking at the problem'?

Re shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater - interesting way to see who panics and starts a stampede, and who doesn't

Nick's not really being an ass, he's just a little out of his depth when unable to don some kind of mask (being 'Momus' matters more on ILM). Silly boy thinks I need a history lesson but I was actually THERE in PC World etc. worrying about these issues a decade ago (and proposing solutions) so we have no need of your coal in Newcastle, sir.

Yes, PC started in academia and the media and kept the denizens of those zones busy bickering while the politicians and corporations carried on business as usual with their same-old New World Order. And of course people were bound to realise mere lip service was being paid to the notion of equality. But I see the anti-globalism impulse as an evolution of these ideas, not a repudiation of same.

Anyway, this thread is rather Miltonesque: testing the virtues of a virtual Paradise could hardly be called anything else.

Milton was an english protestant. the last thing paradise was to him was virtual.