Crikey! Do they pay for this pap?
Australian public intellectual, professional ethicist and censorship advocate Clive Hamilton is at it again, expounding (supposedly profound) views on the Internet and modern culture.
In a Crikey opinion piece that boils down to a whinge, Hamilton concludes:
If free speech means no more than the absence of restrictions on people using public forums to say whatever they want, and however they want, then the Internet is the promised boon. But if free speech means encouraging a free-flowing dialogue that draws the public into an exploration of alternative ideas and enriches civic culture, then the Internet is its enemy.
What on earth is he talking about?
Free speech is the freedom to openly communicate genuinely held beliefs and opinions on any topic. It is the freedom to be honest – according to one’s own conscience – irrespective of the prevailing norms of society.
Socrates, public intellectual
Free speech – as a concept and goal – predates the Internet by millenia. In western culture, Socrates is usually considered the first major exponent of free speech. He lived a long time ago.
Each new communications technology. developed over the many centuries since, has opened up new possibilities. Free speech, in general, benefits from innovations in communications. Ideas spread faster today than ever before. Discussions – within specific interest groups – dance around the world like laser beams. The Internet has democratized access to global communications for contemporary humanity. The World Wide Web has helped ‘level the playing field’, providing hundreds of millions (and ultimately billions) of people with the opportunity to self-publish.
Obviously, not all material published on the Web is of high value (although value is, ultimately, in the eye of the beholder; one man’s tedious family album may be another person’s treasure…)
So what?
Obviously, when people gather to chat and discuss on the Internet, some discussions are better informed, more coherent and more convivial than others. (It’s much the same in coffee shops, I notice.)
So what?
Trolls: the biggest threat to Civilization?
It’s true that some people who use the Internet are rude. Some tell lies. Others are bullies. All so true.
But again, so what? Observe the human species in action – in playgrounds, on the streets, in the workplace, at home, in clubs and bars and on the sports field. Where does everyone behave like saints?
Clive’s core ‘argument’ seems to oscillate between complaints that the Internet hasn’t perfected humanity and claims that it exemplifies and amplifies the worst aspects of humanity. Ergo it’s enemy terrain to be feared, tamed and controlled.
One reason I disagree with him so strongly is that I don’t accept Internet activity does exemplify the worst aspects of human behaviour.
For me, killing and maiming – of real people, not computer graphics – is the ultimate horror, whether State-sanctioned or not. Mass media support, in our society, for (a select list of) wars, attacks, invasions and occupations is therefore a very serious problem, from my perspective. The Internet, insofar as it democratizes debate and makes anti-war voices more audible, is a very positive new force.
For some reason, Clive doesn’t seem to find this line of argument persuasive. Perhaps – like his political hero Denis Healey – Dr Hamilton is essentially a NATO man with a NATO outlook? Could it be that, like holy Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby, Clive doesn’t mind a war or two – as long as they’re good wars?
Of course, Dr Hamilton doesn’t really want to talk about wars at all, judging by his past record. He’d rather talk about sex and smut and things that ‘disgust normal people’. He doesn’t (can’t?) make a case for a causal link between pornography and sexual abuse in real life. So he postures and insinuates. He wants to scare us into accepting government control of information flows. Now, as more and more of his readers switch off, he throws a spat.
Senator Stephen Conroy: gave up blogging when he got too many comments!
For charlatans with a spurious case, the Internet IS a horrid place to debate.
Senator Conroy copped the same lesson last December.
