The ethics of free speech and AGW

Day 2,534, 05:59 Published in USA USA by 2503830

FAIR WARNING:
This is an article that will deal with REAL LIFE issues. Sick and tired of people saying " oh but this is RL i don't want to read this" - you are welcome to close the window and you are done.
=============================================================================

Freedom of speech - unless you've been living under a rock for the past 3 decades you probably have *some* idea of what it is and how it works...as well as the limitations of it.
But i want to push this discussion a little further in this article.
I recently traveled to Netherlands, spent 2 months there ( work related ) and i had the chance to compare their mentality to that of, well, the rest of the world to be frank.
In the US there are limits to free speech: the well known "you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater comes to mind. Hate speech is also included in that category of "forbidden speech", although the waters seems to get muddled a bit on that issue.
As i write this, i will try to get feedback from you, the readers and answer in my article questions or issues you might want to raise relating this topic.
Let's get into some thorny details though:
There was a big fuss a while back that held newspaper headlines for a time about the ideea of JAILING "global warming deniers".
Ok so i am assuming everyone already knows what the issue of global warming is and that everyone understand that when 97% of scientists consider there is "hard evidence" of anthropogenic global warming, the issue demands some attention.
Well industry groups are spending left and right, funding "skeptic groups" ( rea😛 "deniers" ) to create a distorted view of the situation.
In short, to create the illusion that scientists don't agree at all.
We can see this in the UK and some parts of France even on the European continent and of course the US.

Democracy works by having an informed public. If the public is ill or not at all informed then the democratic process is just an exercise in futility and a sham.
And yet industry interests around the world are perverting this democratic process.

But let's not stick to that issue. Let's think of another, immigration - oh yeah, i'm sure to get some flak from this one.
Brits are now notorious for their double standards on immigration: " bring the cream to us but keep the bad to you". But let's get back to freedom of speech. Should the EU ask for a ban of xenophobic racist groups?
Germany already bans neo-nazi groups, and yet somehow the NPD is still active so that doesn't work 100%.
Would a ban just shove the dirt under the rug where it would fester?
More interestingly, this offers up certain questions up for debate:
a) what group is considered "hateful" next?
The recent "men's rights activists" ( a backlash to what they call "feminism gone mad" ) is being called "hateful, sexist" and sometimes even racist.
Yet they claim they are not.
Anti-EU parties claim all the time they are not racist but every week we get some of their members kicked/arrested orexposed as racist so...
b) And this is most important, WHO decides who is a "hate group" ?
Recently 4chan* has been under fire by journalists who were themselves trying to cover up corruption and collusion with industry lobbyists and hide the fact that they were..well...BRIBED to say good things about a product or company.
A backlash is underway by the internet called #gamergate but we'll have to see what results it will yield.
Am i saying 4chan is the pinnacle of morality? Hell no, there are some characters there that would make your stomach turn, but when they raise valid points wouldn't bashing them and labeling them hurt their freedom of expression?

Everytime i hear of censorship i can't help but think of the slippery slope.
First it's a group that truly IS hateful - fair enough.
But then, other forces get involved to get groups THEY don't like to shut up, to cut their support, strangle them, jail them, etc
Anonimity is the absolute pinnacle of freedom. This is exactly why the internet is the FIRST media outlet to CRITICIZE immoral actions by groups in power or anyone in general.
The downside? Trolls, random asshats. True, they are there and make the net pretty shit.
But isn't that a small price to pay for freedom? After all we take the good with the bad.



*4chan: is the notorious board site responsible for hacker attacks against specific groups, birth place of memes and Annonymous. You can google it to find out more but i assume - again - most of my readers are "tech savy" enough 🙂