 |
| source: https://ift.tt/1mYH9EZ |
Recently in the Philippines, we have been hearing multiple calls from people in power (both government and the media) to start censoring fake news. This has started a very important and interesting debate in the Philippines. In this post I will argue that this proposal should be opposed for two fundamental reasons:
- The state has no compelling and legitimate reason to exercise this power over speech.
- The proposal takes power away from the individual and into the state.
Before I expound on the two arguments it is important for me to share the prime principle of my arguments. Every authoritarian structure that exercises power over society needs to justify its legitimacy. When existing authoritarian structures require more power, it also needs to justify it. This is most specially true in a democracy. We often hear people say that there are power structures required for a democracy to properly function making them absolutely necessary. We all have to remember that even though at times they feel like an absolute necessity, their existence is not absolute. This is true for any power structure be it the government, civil society or the media. The only truly absolute holder of power in a democracy is the individual. As such, every power structure in a democracy has to justify its legitimacy to the individual. This is the prime principle that I will use throughout this post.
The state has no compelling and legitimate reason to exercise this power over speech.
Speech is fundamental in every democracy. Through speech the sovereign individual is able to express support or discontent to power. Without free speech, the individual is reduced to a mere servant of power unable to influence the direction of society. Any attempt to curtail free speech needs to have legitimate justification that benefits and protects the individuals ability to exercise it.
The proposed censorship of “fake news” by the state has been defended by its supporters by saying that fake news is harmful to the individual. They claim that fake news exposes the individual to misinformation which could lead them to make the wrong decisions. These decisions may have concrete effects in society. They say that fake news that propagated during the US election allowed a person like Trump to be elected as President – a result they say will have severe negative consequences. Though it may be true that fake news may lead individuals to believe in false and possibly harmful information, this in itself is not justification enough for the state to censor.
When we give the state this power to censor fake news, we have to realize that we are also giving it the power to mediate the truth for us. Free speech is supposed to be the vehicle for the truth to come out. Free speech allows a diversity of ideas to clash and for beliefs to be challenged. Free speech allows the individual to be subjected to this diversity and his beliefs to be challenged. This diversity and challenge spurs the individuals innate creative impulse to re-affirm or change pre-existing ideas and norms. It is this creative impulse in every individual that mediates the truth to come out and for societal norms to be established.
If the state were to step in as the mediator then how will beliefs and norms be challenged? How will society evolve? Not so long ago slavery and eugenics were considered valid and normative. Through the unhampered exchange of ideas between individuals norms were changed and slavery and eugenics are now considered unacceptable. This normative change was not facilitated by the state, in fact it was state power who held on to these beliefs the longest. Another example of this is the Civil Rights movement in the US that fought against racism. Racism started as a norm, then through free exchange of ideas, people slowly changed their belief system. Through the mediation of the individuals creative impulse, society fought against racism. In this case again, it was the state who held on to racist beliefs and structures longer. In fact, without the massive shift in people’s view against racism, the Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded. All the major shifts in society started with a few dissenting individuals who were given a chance to spread their ideas. Ideas that were initially dismissed as either blasphemous or untrue. Since their ideas were allowed to freely spread across society and be challenged by others, the creative impulse of the individual was able to let the truth come out even in the face of state opposition. The state should not be given the power to mediate the truth for the individual because that power rests in the individual.
The proposal takes power away from the individual and into the state.
The power of the state is an extension of the collective will of the individuals in society. Every state power also exists in the individual. Take for example the power to kill or take away a persons freedom. As individuals we have the power to take another life or to take away their freedom for the purpose of self defence, revenge or justice. However, through the creative impulse of the individuals in society, we have decided to create a social contract with the state. We gave the state the power to kill or to take away a persons freedom (ie. death penalty or imprisonment) as part of our social contract. One reason for doing this is because as individuals, our capacity to exercise this power to the whole of society is limited. Through this social contract with the state we are able to extend this individual power and impose it on everyone else.
The fact that this social contract between individual and the state is only an extension of the individuals will is important. As a mere extension of the individuals will, when the state acts based on this social contract, it is in essence the act of the individual. This description is true for every state power.
The proposal to allow the state to censor fake news goes against this principle. As argued earlier, the proposal seeks to take away the individuals power to mediate the truth internally and collectively in society. When the state becomes the mediator for truth, the individual loses that power. This becomes a very dangerous arrangement.
The government and the politicians that run government are human beings. As such government as a political institution of power is flawed and can be corrupted. Government is a man made institution tasked in exercising the social contract between individuals and the state. The corruptibility of government is a reality that we all have to live with and is always subjected to influence from people with vested interest. This nature of government is the very reason why the social contract between individual and the state should never involve an absolute transfer of power from the individual to the state. When the collective individual decides that the government is no longer keeping true to its mandate under the social contract, the individual still has the power and is able to withdraw its support to the government. Every democratic society exercises this power daily through their free expression and during elections. When we transfer the power to mediate the truth to the government, we risk the possibility of the truth to be corrupted by vested interest.
Transferring the power to mediate the truth to an institution that can be corrupted is dangerous to a democracy. Vested corporate interest that constantly seeks to control government for their benefit already spend a fortune trying to manufacture consent through propaganda. The only shield the individual has against this barrage of propaganda from vested interest is the individuals ability to mediate the truth for himself with the help of a free exchange of ideas in society. When truth is mediated by people who seek to take power from the individual then manufacturing consent in society becomes easier. Even if we concede that fake news may be dangerous, it is not as dangerous as giving the state and vested interest that seeks to control it the power to mediate the truth. When the state and the vested interest that seeks to control it becomes the mediator of truth then dissent becomes impossible. When dissent becomes impossible the individual who is supposed to be sovereign becomes disempowered. When this happens democracy will die a slow but certain death.
0 Comments