A matter of principle

In the light of the Bringéus-Resumé story, I have concluded that:

1. Freedom of speech is absolute (not relative) in a free democracy.

2. In order to work, freedom of speech should be followed by tolerance.

3. Citizens should not be deterred from criticising media.

4. Media must not attack citizens that are not public figures.

5. Media should be aware of the consequences of their doings.

6. Media does not have the right to prosecute individuals, this is the role of the legal system.

7. Individual humans stand above corporations.

8. Corporate censorship is unacceptable.

9. All blogs are potentially public, but cannot always be considered as public media, and can thus not be publically scrutinized.

10. Irony and provocation is necessarily subject to context and must therefore not be taken out of context.

11. The stronger party always has a responsibility towards the weaker party.

This is my position, of course.

Comments

[Anna]

Word!

[Magnus Lindkvist]

A very important principle in a free society is that media should be consequence-neutral, i.e. pay little or no attention to the effects that their writing/broadcasting will produce. I understand than from a broader perspective your #5 makes sense in this case but in a larger context, it would be devastating.

[Leon]

I fully understand your perspective.

We both see freedom of speech as an absolute positive good (#1).

Our perspectives differ, because I believe that even though freedom is both absolute as well as an elegant and simple concept, it must be revised or questioned when it breaks down. We shouldn’t think in terms of “but in theory it works...” or “for the greater good” when people’s lives are de facto hurt.

Revising or questioning the principles such as freedom does not imply crippling it, but making sure that it operates in a way that creates welfare for all individuals.

Tolerance is one type of “rule” we need in order to uphold free speech, or there will be chaos.

The (larger) context: INDIVIDUAL - STATE - MEDIA - DEMOCRACY

MEDIA awareness does not imply the fear of STATE prosecution and consequent self-censorship, beacuse a free society rests upon a working legal system without the fear of prospecution without trial. That leaves us with one dimension only: responsiblity towards individuals.

Consider the fact that in a free society, every INDIVIDUAL must have the freedom to PARTICIPATE by expression of opinions. This is the true freedom of speech.

The power of MEDIA is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it has a function of monitoring the STATE and ensuring democracy (big media can be good). On the other hand media is stronger than INDIVIDUALS in terms of voice, in terms of organization, in terms of expert knowledge through education/profession. It therefore has an inherent power to undermine the individual’s freedom of participation.

The greater the power, the greater the responsibility. So, to maximise individual participation in a free society:

#5. Media should be aware of the consequences of their doings.

Obviously, principle #5 would not be desirable in Iran or China.

My philosophy professor once said: the more “free” a democratic society is, the more “rules (both laws but also implicit ones) we have in place to govern it.