Read on Twitter
Well, Act, I was employing my free speech right to criticise the approach to hate speech that David Seymour has taken, which is quite clear in the thread, but I get you’re keen to pivot to “actually you’ve misunderstood your own thread.” 
Let’s talk about misinformation!
https://twitter.com/actparty/status/1320481012598493184
Let’s talk about misinformation!
https://twitter.com/actparty/status/1320481012598493184
Misinformation is defined as “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.”
I have a few examples which may help.
I have a few examples which may help.
First though, I just want to check in on the whole defending white supremacist speech thing, etc, because this is a tactic that is often employed, which is “free speech is good & should be protected, therefore all speech should be free from consequence.”
Sounds logical-ish, but:
Sounds logical-ish, but:
Starting from the position of “We should debate whether white supremacy is bad because that’s free speech” is flawed.
It requires proving the sky is blue to people who are invested in it being red/harmful
Instead it *normalises hate by platforming the premise that it’s debatable*
It requires proving the sky is blue to people who are invested in it being red/harmful
Instead it *normalises hate by platforming the premise that it’s debatable*
I’d say (with my right to criticise) that this is rejecting the central premise of the concern (harm) and instead using a media platform to deliberately frame free speech as the issue rather than harm - but that’s my opinion, which I’m sure Act agrees is important to protect.
When you add harm into the equation, it doesn’t work anymore:
“Human interaction is good & should be protected, therefore all human interaction should be free from consequence.”
Bit harder, eh?
“Human interaction is good & should be protected, therefore all human interaction should be free from consequence.”
Bit harder, eh?
There’s plenty of thinking from experts out there about the real consequences of hate speech to mental health & wellbeing, but also just adding here as a general comment that we know that white supremacy is y’know, bad for the economy, among other things. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/19/how-white-supremacy-weakens-the-united-states/
Anyway, we digress!
Misinformation example:
Golriz Ghahraman is categorically not a “menace to freedom” and yet David Seymour deliberately said it, again using a media platform.
Why?
Was it to deliberately deceive a certain subset of listeners for political gain?
We’ll never know
Golriz Ghahraman is categorically not a “menace to freedom” and yet David Seymour deliberately said it, again using a media platform.
Why?
Was it to deliberately deceive a certain subset of listeners for political gain?
We’ll never know
Misinformation example:
Misinformation involves downplaying reported comments in order to deceive - like, just for example saying a threat to destroy mosques is just “a silly comment on Facebook.”
If the PM had tried that one on our election would have been quite different
Misinformation involves downplaying reported comments in order to deceive - like, just for example saying a threat to destroy mosques is just “a silly comment on Facebook.”
If the PM had tried that one on our election would have been quite different
What else? Is misinfo not acknowledging concerns from factually, demonstrably targeted groups of people and instead publicly backing their persecutors without *ever* talking about the harm caused to the persecuted groups?
If not, maybe just file under “yuck.”
If not, maybe just file under “yuck.”
Just a hat, probably demonstrably not at this stage, right?
"You are trying to conflate something perfectly innocent - auctioning off an amusing hat - with somebody who made some distasteful comments later and there's no connection."
- David Seymour
"You are trying to conflate something perfectly innocent - auctioning off an amusing hat - with somebody who made some distasteful comments later and there's no connection."
- David Seymour
By asking if I get that David Seymour has a stance on hate speech that involves being critical of strengthening free speech laws, you’re not addressing the premise of my thread, which is that *hate is strengthened by clear implicit acceptance, and by consistently defending it.*
This is what is called a straw man argument from Act.
“A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.”
“A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.”
What it comes down to is I am really concerned that the defence of the list on the left has been outweighed by defence of the list on the right - as reported really clearly in the media.
Act don’t have to like that I’m saying it, just like I don’t have to like the fact that...
Act don’t have to like that I’m saying it, just like I don’t have to like the fact that...
... There wasn’t a lot of free speech defence happening from the Act corner when this was happening, weirdly. Seems like the kind of thing they’d vehemently support. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/409517/sir-bob-jones-withdraws-defamation-case-against-filmmaker-renae-maihi
Also, sometimes things are just unequivocally true, like that tomatoes are the worst, and that yelling fire in a crowded theatre should not be done - that’s free speech but people don’t do it because it is universally understood to be an asshole move.
The beautiful thing about free speech is that you don’t have to take my word for it - supporting hate speech IS a concern just as much as ensuring freedom of speech is protected IS a concern. Lot of great dialogue out there on this issue:
About emboldening hate via political platforms: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12259
Good further reading on the UofA issue: https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/15-10-2019/how-the-free-speech-excuse-targets-people-of-colour-and-trans-people-alike/
“Defending a right to bigotry, or to express hate speech, trivialises what the denial of both free speech and academic freedom can really look like.” https://theconversation.com/there-are-differences-between-free-speech-hate-speech-and-academic-freedom-and-they-matter-124764
I know that where Act is coming from is that defence of hate speech is just as true & necessary as free speech.
If defence of hate speech is deeply necessary, on the flip side criticism & rejection of it is necessary too - even if that’s harder.
Hope we can agree on that.
/
If defence of hate speech is deeply necessary, on the flip side criticism & rejection of it is necessary too - even if that’s harder.
Hope we can agree on that.
/
