Liberty Alone

I like this.

There appears to be a flourishing Samizdata* in Cuba. People trade information from the Internet using flash drives. The government’s attempts to strictly control Internet access means that there’s a flourishing black market in computers and internet connections along side informal networks trading data from the few moments of Internet access people can afford and get.

I hope this can expand and undermine the regime in Havana. Information and debate are the keys to freedom, if people can undermine government controls then it will hasten the decline of the dictatorship.

* term filched from the website, but it seems appropriate, its an electronic Samizdat in effect.

I’m donating a cluestick to Dr Rowan Williams for his suggestion that there should be

new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking.

If such a law came into being I hope its first use would be to lock up the good doctor for such thoughtless proposals.

Remember those Muhammed cartoons which caused such a fuss a while back? Well, the fallout continues.

In Alberta, Canada, Ezra Levant has been hauled up before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the cartoons in the Western Standard.

This is not a judicial proceeding. It has none of the safeguards which protect the accused.

What is his crime? Offending someone. Not actually harming someone, not even calling for someone to be harmed, just offending someone.

My view is that the only time the state can legitimately intervene in freedom of expression directly is if in the course of that expression someone is unwillingly harmed. Otherwise the state has no role.
Indirect sanctions by the state could possibly be brought if conspiracy to cause harm can be shown - for example by persuading someone to harm another. In that case however, intent would need to be shown.

In this case, none of that applies, yet a man is being brought to trial outside the legal system, for offending someone. That is abuse of the power of the commission. It goes against the very things the commission was set up to protect and rule upon.

It is disgusting that such extrajudicial trials can take place in a Western country, even without the assault of freedom of speech.

It is so good to see all the defense of free speech in relation to the Irving and Griffin invitation to speak at the Oxford Union all over LibDem blogs, including a very interesting description of what the event was actually like.

This sort of defense of the rights of those we vehemently disagree with and the wholesale condemnation of those who use violence to try and curtail the rights of their opponents is part of the heart of liberalism.

My thoughts have been echoed all over the blogs, but the sentiments benefit from being repeated-
As loathsome as we find the positions of such people, as disgusting as we find their views, we will defend their right to express them where they are not using force.
The actions of those who use violence to prevent the right to free speech of others is wrong, be they left or right wing. The true anti-fascist policy is the liberal one of freedom of expression and prohibition of violence.

The hypocrisy of many of the anti-fascists is astounding, but not surprising. The anti-fascists in the 1930s adopted the same tactics, mostly from the Communist Party. Hayek was right in arguing that the Communists and Fascists were fighting for the same anti-liberal support and that their real enemy is the liberal. The same goes for the anti-liberal left and right embodied in the BNP, sections of the Tory Party, Respect (both versions) and some Greens and parts of the Labour Party.

And Boris Johnson? (am I alone in finding that bit strange?)

I’m sure you’ve seen this elsewhere and it should be obvious to you that I would come out defending free speech, but I thought I’d say something on the matter.

Chicken Yoghurt seems to be the main guy with info on this.

Duncan Borrowman also gives pointers to some of Craig Murray’s writing here.

Aside from that I have two things to mention. One is the need to reform English libel laws (I don’t know about the Scottish ones), the system works on a presumption of guilt and publication is deemed to be where the works are read. They go completely against any conception of free speech since they favour the rich against the ordinary person.

Secondly, I hope that the same level of outrage would be expressed against this sort of action against a neo-Nazi or other unsavoury website. Freedom of speech must be absolute otherwise it is meaningless.

It seems everything is depressing for liberals at the moment.
We have the smoking ban infringing on property rights.
We have the EU advocating internet censorship and looking towards China for ideas.
The new Criminal Justice Bill seeks to make ‘offensive images’ illegal - no matter how they were created. This is now well into the realms of thought crime.
That beacon of freedom, the USA, is sliding ever more towards authoritarianism, following our descent.
The US congress has failed to back opening up immigration more and is adopting an ever more protectionist stance (more proof that the Democrats are no more liberals than the Republicans).
There’s the usual calls for ever more power to detain without charge and suspend habeas corpus.
There’s an increase in intolerance and bigotry even within the Anglican Church.
Not to mention long term concerns about ID cards, state surveillance through traffic cameras and road charging, the ever increasing state and its increasing theft of money through taxation and regulation.

About all that is going right is that we’re not in France, Russia or Zimbabwe.

Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance has written a very good article attacking censorship in general and specifically the recent attempt at outlawing holocaust denial.
He asserts the purpose of free speech in society very well, both how it allows us to see the debate which leads to discovery of the truth even without us understanding everything and how denial of free speech prevents this process and gives apparent credence to the outlawed view.

Read is here

(hat tip: Samizdata)

I see that this has already been picked up in the LibDem blogs by Chris Black, although Chris doesn’t give the whole letter, which can be found (nicely formatted) here.

The whole thing originates here.

A quick summary: Ex US Marine and academic Prof. Walter F. Murphy found himself inconvenienced by his inclusion on the terrorist watch list.

Chris picks up on one point - a question asked by a TSA official:

“Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.”

This is worrying for a start - you may protest, but we will then treat you as a subversive.
Chris stops there, but the letter continues ,the professor had not been on a protest as he explains:

I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. “That’ll do it,” the man said.

This is even more worrying, criticism of the government leading to persecution. This is dangerously close to the sedition acts, except its done in an extra-legal manner. This is purely an executive decision, there’s no judicial oversight. This goes beyond the proper functioning of government as a servant of those under its jurisdiction and places the government above individuals as the master.

This is an underhanded attempt to restrict free speech. Rather than attempting to use the legal process as has been done in the past, this uses arbitrary authority to undermine those who criticise, it seeks to treat critics of the government as unofficial suspects and to scare people into submission.

There has just been a vote in the US Senate over a nasty little section of a Lobbying Bill.
The aim was to make all political bloggers or grassroots campaigners whose sties are read by more than 500 individuals register with Congress as lobbyists and to report quarterly to Congress.

This is quite clearly ridiculous and an infringement on free speech.
Thankfully a Republican amendment to remove the clause was proposed and has been passed, with 7 Democrats voting in favour of the amendment, the rest voting to keep the clause unchanged.

I wonder whether this was a case of ideology on the Democrat’s part, in which case I dread to imagine what else they’ll attempt, but I suspect it was a case of partisan politics. The Republicans are on one side so the Democrats must oppose it. That hardly promotes a healthy democracy or good law. I sense another country which needs radical electoral reform…

For me the most outrageous point made by Tim Ireland in his attack on Guido was that Guido may cause the rest of the political blogging scene (such as it is - its not a unified group anyway) to have restrictions put upon it.

This may be a legitimate worry - the way our government behaves makes this even seem likely - but it is no reason to censor yourself (or ask others to do the same). It is giving in to the very concern you have - the government’s ends have been achieved without even the need for active intervention. When people start behaving this way the authoritarians have won, we fear them sufficiently that we don’t do anything which may raise their ire, no matter how legal it actually is.

This is actually the most insidious and most effective form of censorship. It is silent and thus raises little objection. Restricting your freedom voluntarily to ensure that freedom is not lost leaves you with no real freedom.

As for Guido - if he libels someone, they can sue him for it. There’s no need to resort to legislation.

Finally - on the internet, censorship is difficult - the only way to do it is with something like the Great Firewall of China, which requires the apparatus of a totalitarian government and even then doesn’t work particularly well - dissidents will find ways around the firewall and will be able to hide their actions. If laws are brought in, then sites will migrate to foreign countries under pseudonyms. A great opportunity for third world countries though - hosting political blogs for dissidents… (or for places like Sealand.

In short, the suggestion that we should censor ourselves is short sighted and plays into the hands of those who would silence us. It ushers in some of the most sinister aspects of totalitarian regimes.