Milkshakes and Hate Speech - Treading Carefully

Dr Neal Curtis is Associate Professor and Head of Media and Communication at the University of Auckland. This article was first published in Newsroom.

Milkshakes and hate speech

pn390

Milkshakes stop people from doing what they want to do. Hate speech effectively does the same. Dr Neal Curtis explains how.

Since the terrorist attack in Christchurch the debate about the relative damage of hate speech and value of free speech has become understandably heated.

Those worried about the effects of hate speech are rightly concerned it fuelled the attack and will ignite another, while defenders of free speech, also quite rightly, argue the attack could be used to undermine essential democratic rights. Meanwhile, the acoalition Government has asked the Ministry of Justice to work with the Human Rights Commission to review the balance of the country’s laws in this area.

Attacking Golriz Ghahraman

Golriz Ghahraman pn335

You'd think people tottering along the line close to libel or slander would have been warned by the recent conviction, and later declared self-bankruptcy, of WhaleOil's Cameron Slater and broadcaster Helen duPessis-Allen's conviction  by the Broadcasting Standards Authority for anti-Pasifika comments. Not to mention official and widespread concerns about the inflammatory  misuses of social media during and after the Christchurch tragedy.

But not SB, Cameron's partner on Whaleoil. She (?) has launched a spiteful and unfair attack on Greens MP Golriz Ghuhraman for her supposed denial of free speech.  Under the heading "Golriz uses her free speech to undermine our democracy"

1. SB writes (my emphasis): 

I do not want to silence her nor do I want to punish her for her divisive opinions. I want to amplify her voice so that people know exactly how divisive and wrong she is.

Fiji: "The (Christchurch) Attack has also Spurred a New Level of Religious and Racial Intolerance on Popular Social Media Platforms"

Threat of terrorism closer to our doors: Qiliho

AQELA SUSU  the fiji times

22 March, 2019, 12:25 pm

Add caption

Commissioner of Police Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho (left) with other police officers during the welcome ceremony of new recruits at Police Academy yesterday. Picture: RAMA pn307

THE terror attacks at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand a week ago has brought the threats of terrorism even closer to our doors, says Police Commissioner Brigadier General Sitiveni Qiliho.

Brig-Gen Qiliho said the emerging threats to the Pacific region were real and law enforcement agencies needed to look at their security landscape.

He made the statement while addressing more than 200 police recruits at the Fiji Police Academy in Nasova, Suva yesterday.

He told the recruits that every day new crime trends emerged, placing more expectations on their service delivery.

“As the nation mourned with the victims’ families, it was also a chance for law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region to reassess their security landscape, as the honourable Prime Minister stated ‘the horrendous attack can happen anywhere’,” Brig-Gen Qiliho said.

"The attack has also spurred a new level of religious and racial intolerance on popular social media platforms, and I have directed the chief of intelligence and investigations and his team to investigate those posting hate speeches aimed at instigating attacks on certain sections of our communities.”

He reminded the recruits that these were some of the demands placed on policing and the urgency in addressing emerging threats would mean juggling many things at once.

“We are not in the business of giving excuses and if we drag our feet the impacts can be devastating for our respective countries. In having officers from Nauru and Tuvalu here, we are able to strengthen collaboration between our police forces to better protect our respective borders,” he added.

Are Facebook and Twitter Killing Mainstream Media and Blogs?

pn273

The print media is threatened by the internet, resulting in mergers, layoffs and closures. Blogs and websites are also threatened.  This Scoop article argues that it could be the end for objectivity in journalism.

"2019 looks like it might well be another really bad, terrible, not so good year for the traditional journalism model globally.

Ian Shirley on Free Speech in Who's Interests?

Note the different scores. pn250

Free Speech in the Public Interest
By Late Emeritus Professor Ian Shirley

Published on August 21, 2018

Ian died on the 20th January this year. In this article he discusses free speech and hate speech, and free speech for personal aggrandisement and free speech in the public interest.-- ACW

The public discussions that have dominated the airwaves in New Zealand over the past two weeks serves to illustrate how far we have come as a country and how far we need to go!

The Social Media in Fiji and the Online Safety Act: Balance Needed

pn252

UPDATE. This article  from the UK looks at the responsibilities  of  website owners and asks if social media should be banned. Vinaka, VM
________

The following is based largely on this article (click) by James Griffiths of CNN International with my own views in italics interspersed.

In May last year, after a short two month public consultation, the Fiji Government passed the Online Safety Act which placed  limits on what could be published on social media without the threat of prosecution.  Government said the Act was to prevent online postings such as that reported in the Fiji Sun of  "hundreds of nude and intimate images of women, mostly USP students" and one of the victims had considered suicide.  Postings which causes "harm to the individual" would now be liable to a fine of $9,400 and up to five years in prison. All FijiFirst MPs voted for the Act, and all the Opposition voted against. 

Fiji Elections: Why the Opposition Bloggers say the Results are a Fraud

pn178

Three main concerns have been expressed on the social media about the credibility of the election results. The question is, are they fraudulent? Have they been rigged?

Free Speech and Hate Speech

BREAKING NEWS.

Australian racist Pauline Hanson One Nation Party leader has been invited to speak in NZ by the little known (revived after a 20 years of hibernation) Government Transparency League who president John Lehmann, incidentally, told Paula Bennett that rape ("a bit of violence") is acceptable, before apologizing, saying it was a joke. Phil Goff is also invited, which presumably makes Hanson's invite more acceptable acceptable. Pn28

 ***

For some weeks now New Zealanders have been bombarded by people bandying contrary views on hate speech and freedom of speech, and the UK has not been far behind.

Tory former foreign minister and Brexit champion Boris Johnson recently publicly compared Muslim women's burqas to 'letter boxes' and 'bank robbers'. PM Teresa May urged him to apologize -- which he refused -- and asked him to choose his words more carefully. Johnson is no fool. He deliberately chose to be care-less.

The NZ debate

The NZ scene was set off with the proposed visit of ultra-right Canadian racists Lauren Southern  and Stefan Molyneux 

For their bio read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux  

Auckland Mayor, Phil Goff, refused them venue access which led the unfettered free speech lobby to cry foul. They had already been refused venues in the UK and Australia where they spoke against multiculturalism and said Aboriginals and their culture are backward, When an Auckland venue was found some days later, the event was cancelled because of fear of violence. Many in NZ, including some who thought they had the right to speak, were pleased to see them depart,

PM Jacinda Adern said Kiwis were hostile to their views and Green Party Marama Davidson said Aotearoa "would not stand for their messages of of racism, hatred and especially white supremacy."¹ but Government did not follow their cross-Tasman cousins by refusing the pair visas.

They were allowed into NZ because we have no law making hate speech a specific offence, although arguably the Human Rights Act 1993, the Crimes Act 1961, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to which we are signatories, could be used.

But an appeal to the Human Rights Review Tribunal by Labour Maori MP Louisa Wall who complained against Fairfax newspaper (now Stuff) for publishing cartoons showing Maori as welfare bludgers and poor parents preoccupied with smoking, drinking and gambling was unsuccessful.  The only successful prosecution goes back to 1979 for distributing pamphlets vilifying Jews. 

Labour MP former lawyer and academic Duncan Webb  thinks hate speech offences should be dealt with under the Summary Offences Act together with intimidation and other social offences. Earlier, former Race Relations Conciliator Susan Devoy unsuccessfully asked Government for a hate-speech law, arguing that free speech could too easily become a cover for threatening and harmful language (NZ Listener July 21)

Meanwhile the NZ Listener, one of our few fair and thoughtful journals on controversial issues, ran an eleven-page article, spelling out the pros and cons of free speech¹

And at the weekend NZTV1's Q+A programme, now screening at 9:30 on Sundays, devoted a quarter of its 1½ hour spot to the Free Speech (See Follow ups and references below for this and most further references).

Then, only a few days ago Massey University VC Prof Jan Thomas, prompted by the prospect of former National PM and ACT leader Brash visiting campus publicly stated hate speech had no place in a university

And yesterday, to keep the pot boiling, a debate at Auckland University involving the venerable Brash was met with support from some and angry protests by others. Join the hilarity by looking at the video.

Basic arguments: con and pro

The basic arguments are reasonably straightforward.

Pro. This view holds to free speech regardless of consequences. Free speech is a human right in a democratic society. Its supporters may or may not agree with a hate speech they all think the hate is better brought out into the open so that it can debated; its suppression will cause it to break out in a worse form, its supporters growing, and violence could result. And where, they ask, do you set the boundary to what is acceptable and unacceptable? Banning once will lead to more bans. Who sets sets and defines the boundary?

Con. Those for placing limits on free speech are concerned with the consequences of hate speech, whether it be on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation. They argue that hate speech incites ill-will, hostility and violence towards the target groups, encourages others to assume hate speech is natural, making it more popular among sections of a population. increasing the number of those spreading it message further  Unfettered free speech impinges on the freedom of others. But victims of free speech,  who have a special stake in defining hate speech, rarely are free to respond. A reasonable society should be able to define and put boundaries on free speech so that it is not hate speech.

Questions no one else raised

I'll conclude with two views that are decidedly for limits on free speech  which raise issues not mentioned or taken into account by either pro or cons contenders.

First, from my old friend retired book seller and Board member of our Holocaust Centre Steven Sedley. 

I quote extracts from his blog posting of 25 July 1.

All sorts of 'right minded' people, people whose opinions I thought I would usually respect get their knickers in knots over the question of 'Free speech'.

After describing Lauren Southern as " a knock you dead, glamorous 23 year old young woman" he asks

Who are these speakers and what is their message? We know that they gallivant around the world disseminating false and repugnant ideas. Why were they stopped from speaking in the UK, in Australia? Who funds their travel? Whose cause are they promoting?

No one else asked these questions.

Would anyone argue that everyone has the right to disseminate lies, or would they argue that one person's truth is another's lie. I believe that there is such a thing as fact based truth, and disseminating lies and half-truths to destabilise society is unacceptable.

Would the champions of free speech grant the right to people with dissenting opinions to question and comment? I would imagine that such questions and comments would be ruled out of order, or if the person asking the questions persists, he or she would be manhandled and thrown out.

No one asked the Canadians that question, either.

But then such rumpus would give the promoters of the event further publicity. For the promoters of extreme causes freedom of speech is a one way street, something they demand for themselves, but as history shows, they answer those who dissent with violence.

Everything has a context

My own contribution to the debate is that, like everything else in life, the issue has to be seen in context. We should ask:

Is everyone entitled to free speech? Prisoners, the mentally deranged? 
Is everyone entitled to speak to everyone? Is there no limit to their audience? Does this include young people, and if not at what age is unfettered free speech allowed?
Is free speech a human right (as some claim) in all situations? A national emergency, war time?
Is free speech acceptable on every topic? Pre-martial sex? Approval of pornography?
Does the size of the audience have any relevance to free speech? Is what is acceptable to a hall of 900 who paid or chose to be present and where the audience can usually respond, also acceptable to the almost-involuntary attendance of a mass audience watching national TV, where the opportunities to respond are limited? Switching the TV off is an individual response but many people would probably leave the TV on.

Finally, how much is free speech a Western-perceived right? Or does our "one size fits all" apply also to non-Western societies and cultures?  

I'm not necessarily talking about the right of women in Muslim societies, but of many indigenous societies, such as Maori and Pacifika, where some limits would be put on some free speech, in some places and some situations. And who are we Pakeha to tell them otherwise! 

Or imagine the divisiveness and likely chaos of unfettered free speech in a  Chimbu tribe in PNG, in a Samoan village on an atoll in Tokelau.   I'll say no more.

NOTES

1. http://stevensedley.blogspot.com

Follow-ups and References

• Lauren Southern bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern
• Stefan Molyneux bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
• NZ Listener article July 21 The Freedom to Hate https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/free-speech-hate-speech-where-should-we-draw-line/
• Google List of articles https://www.stuff.co.nz/searchresults?cof=FORID%3A9&cx=006730714154542492986%3Aoh6vl0ybuqy&ie=UTF-8&q=Hate+speech&Search+Site=&siteurl=www.stuff.co.nz%2F&ref=&ss=5497j3924267j16
• Academic Bryce Edward's round up. https://eveningreport.nz/2018/07/10/bryce-edwards-political-roundup-does-freedom-of-speech-extend-to-far-right-voices/
• Karl du Fresne on Goff's venue refusal https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/105697234/too-often-socalled-hate-speech-is-simply-distasteful-or-offensive
• John Roughan 'Left clos to alt-Right. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12092329
• Patrick Gower interview with Lauren Southern https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/kiwi-tv-host-left-speechless-by-lauren-southern/news-story/a33b8564b5f75db9279744e632cd7f13 and https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/08/patrick-gower-was-not-destroyed-by-lauren-southern-and-stefan-molyneux.html
• The NZTV1 Q+A programme. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/clips/extras/qa-panel-freedom-speech-hate-6572236
• Jan Thomas, Massey Vice-Chancellor
  http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=653BCD03-4B68-419A-8B22-41028D4FCC78
• Concerns about Massey VC's position
  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/106072486/massey-universitys-suppression-of-free-speech-cant-go-uncontested
• Don Brash in full swing. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/08/livestream-don-brash-in-free-speech-debate-at-auckland-university.html
• Footballer Israel Folau's comments on Gays https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/103197023/Alice-Snedden-Hate-speech-is-hate-speech-no-debate
• @CrozWalsh #Fiji #USP