Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Hey you guys!

Sick and tired of how I never update this blog?

Well I have a new one I'm trying on for size! Go check it out at http://withrespect2x.posterous.com/. I opened with a political rant, so Nonchalant Adventurer, you owe me one.

What's that you say? In what way am I more likely to update regularly just because of switched hosting platforms?

Wow, what an astute question!

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Sorry, readers

Assuming I still have any.

I haven't been neglecting you completely, I swear. I've been thinking up and drafting all sorts of interesting posts... I've just struggled with that perennial "getting things finished off" issue.

So here's a very quick throwaway post to, hopefully, get some momentum going.

Why has Amanda Palmer's song Oasis generated more controversy in the U.K. than the U.S.?

British broadcasters have supposedly objected to the trivialisation of rape, abortion and religion in the song (and the corresponding music video.)

Now clearly this is a crock. The song trivializes these issues in the same way that, say, Oliver's Army trivializes war and conscription. Well, censorship has a noble tradition of not necessarily

However, the interesting thing is that religion and abortion, in particular, are far, far more potent sources of open political controversy in America than anywhere in the Western World, including Britain. So why is an American song on the topic finding itself on the wrong end of British sensibilities?

Two possible explanations come to mind. First, Britain, indeed Europe in general, is more "politically correct", in a very broad and loose sense of that term, than America. Americans, with their first amendment protected flag burners, and indeed their first amendment protected anti-abortion protesters, are more accustomed to robust differences of opinions on all kinds of things. In Britain, mainland Europe, Australia and so on, people are in general more concerned about offending others.

Second, the broadcasters in question are actually offended because they perceive the song as unflattering in its portrayal of Britpop fans (a category which for a while at least presumably included themselves). The stated reason is just a convenient mask.

Anyone got any other suggestions?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

One argument for the U.S. First Amendment

In a discussion I was involved with a while ago on Facebook concerning the merits of free speech, I posited an idea that surprised me a little as it occurred to me. It's probably not an especially novel view - I'd imagine it's an argument libertarians would be fond of making - but I think it's worth expanding on and defending the thesis here.

Free speech is far more fundamental to a democracy than voting.

How can that be? Democracy is about the people exercising collective self-determination. The people express their will through votes, either directly on issues via referenda and the like, or indirectly via a layer of abstraction, namely electing representatives. (In fact there is more than one such layer in Australia's Westminster system, since the elected representatives themselves then go on to elect the cabinet and prime minister/premier that compose the core decisions makers of the executive government.)

A plethora of other rights ascribed to citizens are seen as critical to the modern idea of democracy - the right to impartial trial by jury, freedom to associate and peacefully assemble, and so on. Sometimes this is framed in terms of a trade-off, between more or less the Democratic and Republican ideals for which the two major American political parties are named - the collective right of the majority to make decisions about how society should be run, versus the individual rights of citizens to self-determination free from the interference of other parties, including the State.

Never mind that particular balancing act. Free speech is not just an important right for the individual person, it is a necessary precondition for the collective right embodied in voting to be meaningful.

Of course, nearly everyone accepts that you need free speech to have a proper democracy. My point goes beyond that, though. First, try and imagine a society in which there is free speech, but no multi-party democratic elections - a benevolent dictatorship of sorts. Not so hard to do, right? I can picture autocratic government that is perfectly tolerant of pro-democracy rallies, allows private citizens to own newspapers and publish editorials that advocate their own political views, etc. Of course, few if any such governments tend to exist in the real world, because inevitably open discussions of a government's failings (and in the long run, any government will have failings) result in sustained and coherent pressure for it to change, so real world dictators keep a tight reign on civil discourse, acutely aware of how critical it is to maintaining their grip on power. Still, its not an inconceivable arrangement.

Now, consider the converse scenario - a country where it is perfectly legal to form and join political parties, and genuine elections are held once every few years to decide which members of which parties should form the government. Except, its illegal for any of those parties to publicly disclose their criticisms of the existing leadership, or advocate their alternative views on policy.

On election day the ballot boxes aren't rigged, the candidates on the paper really are different, and no one is going to punish you in any way for voting for the opposition. You just have no access to any of the information needed to make an informed political decision.

Which society would you rather live in? Which society do you think would be better governed?

At least when you're free to criticise a regime, there's a chance, however small, that the leaders will take your ideas on board, even when you have no ability to hold them accountable. How much hope do you have though when at best you can vote arbitrarily for an unknowable alternative, on the random chance it will prove a better option?

To draw an analogy. The people of a nation without elections lose the right to self-determination; much akin to the individual case of a human slave, they possess no real control of their own joint destiny. But a slave at least retains one key freedom, that of conscience.

Whereas the people of a nation without free speech may be perfectly able to make collective decisions, subject only to the constraint that no ideas are exchanged amongst them in the process - like a person who is free to do whatever she wants, after merely having had certain beliefs forcibly prevented from circulating within her brain.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Congratulations Google

Just a quick shout out to Google for taking what must have been a tough commercial decision to end its controversial compliance with Chinese government censorship in response to attempted cyberattacks on human rights activists' gmail accounts.

Of course many detractors will argue this is simply the reversal of what was a heinously unethical decision in the first place. Keep in mind, though, that this is the world's largest search engine effectively pulling out of the world's largest internet market; hard to justify to shareholders on a matter of principle, which is why this new security angle is probably helpful to the corporate leadership in adding more solid-sounding business reasons - on top of what was previously just a manageable PR problem - for making the call.

In honour of what will hopefully be a step forward for the cause of free speech in China and ultimately around the world, this blog will soon return properly from its holiday slumber via a post on free speech I'd half written some time ago.

Oh and while on the topic of free speech and China, I'd just like to personally express my desire that the Chinese Government (technically, its judiciary) go fuck itself for summarily trying and executing a man who was almost certainly manipulated by criminals while suffering from delusional psychosis due to Bipolar Disorder, without assessing his mental health, or allowing access for foreign psychiatrists to do so. Just one more instance of appalling disrespect for human rights in a long, long list - hopefully