https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/17/uk-columnist-because-salman-rushdie-got-stabbed-we-should-regulate-online-speech-get-rid-of-anonymity-and-hold-social-media-responsible/

Over and over again, vocal supporters of free speech eventually seem to change
their position when they realize people say things they don’t want to hear. It
often leads to some seriously shifted rationales. The latest in this theme is
Simon Jenkins, longtime UK journalist and currently a columnist for The
Guardian in the UK, who has penned a truly bizarre column basically embracing
ditching free speech online because Salman Rushdie got stabbed.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist (the kind who normally supports free
speech) wants to throw away free speech online because an author, who
published a physical book before the internet was really around, and faced a
fatwa from Iran for decades, got stabbed. And this is supposed to make sense.

But of course he frames this taking away of free speech... as a defense of
free speech. Because of course he does.

The title kinda gives it away: "Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has
to be regulated, now more than ever."

Umm... okay.

The piece begins by talking about Salman Rushdie, who you likely have heard
was stabbed recently, almost certainly in response to the decades-old fatwa
issued against him over the (excellent and worth reading, by the way) "Satanic
Verses" book. Now there are all sorts of reasons to talk about Rushdie's
situation in the context of free speech, given that he's an example of what
happens when government forces try to crack down on speech they dislike. But,
it's unclear what this has to do with regulating online speech-- given that
Rushdie wrote a book (which was published back before most people were on the
internet) and was stabbed in person.

The internet seems wholly disconnected from this issue. Except to Jenkins.

Jenkins, weakly, tries to tie the issues together by leading us down a
mythical garden path. In short, here is my paraphrase of the steps Jenkins
drags us along: John Stuart Mill supported free speech... except in cases of
harm to others... and using that logic, many countries banned Rushdie's
book... because they didn't want people to take offense... and so now
governments are criminalizing taking offense... including in the UK's Online
Safety Bill.

That all seems fairly tenuous as I could easily challenge many of the leaps of
logic down that garden path. Either way, in just a few easy steps we get from
Rushdie getting stabbed to the UK's attempt to regulate speech. And at least
on this point, Jenkins makes a bit of sense. He rightly seems to dislike the
UK's Online Safety Bill. And that's the right position to take if you support
free speech, because, as we've noted in multiple articles, it would be a
disaster for free speech. Jenkins recognizes that:

The latest venture by the state into this morass is the Johnson
government's online safety bill, with its bizarre concept of
"legal but harmful" content. However well-intentioned, it seeks
to monitor an astonishing range of evils and indisciplines,
from online stalking to incitement to riot, from phony
medicine to fake Russian news. How it will work has yet to
be stated. It is a censor's charter-- or nightmare.

Okay. We agree. The Online Safety Bill is bad and will be used for vast
amounts of dangerous censorship. But then Jenkins seems to embrace it? And
seems to think we need to pass it because of Rushdie. What's that got to do
with Rushdie? Apparently it's because people were mad at Rushdie on the
internet?

Regulating the internet has become a major political
challenge. Europe faced a similar crisis with the advent of
printing and evolved licensing and copyright laws to handle
it. The key then lay in identifying the author and the
publisher. There had to be some accountability for the
words. In contrast, the internet has led to an anarchy of
dissemination. While Rushdie has authored a book and
is accountable for it, many of his critics are part of that
familiar social media feature: an anonymous mob
howling after its victim across the ether.

Um, what? Plenty of his critics, including the guy who issued the fatwa
against Rushdie, the Ayatollah Khomeini, did so under their names. And it
wasn't because of the internet. I'm sure there were some critics of him online
who were anonymous, but what's that got to do with the fact that he was
stabbed, in person, by a guy with a name?

You can see where this is heading of course. Even as Jenkins rightly fears the
impact of the UK's Online Safety Bill he's gone to what Jillian York has
rightly called "the white man's gambit" and decided the real problem is only
anonymity. For the attack on Salman Rushdie. Who has been living under death
threats since a time when the internet barely existed and which had nothing to
do with the internet in any way, shape or form.

But Jenkins is somehow sure it's to blame.

He throws in a weird paragraph saying "sure, sure, maybe anonymity might be
important sometimes, but it can't be that important."

Some claim anonymity helps whistleblowers and others--
but such benefits are massively outweighed by the
harm done by the unruly and unknown mob.

"Some claim"? How about naming who is claiming that-- like actual experts on
this topic, like the aforementioned Jillian York, along with tons of human
rights experts who know that anonymity is essential to protecting all sorts of
people (blithely summarized by Jenkins as "whistleblowers and others"). It
protects way more than "whistleblowers"-- who actually are quite important. It
protects marginalized people. It protects people in abusive relationships. It
protects kids with different viewpoints from their parents. It protects
critics of the rich and powerful. It protects everyone at some point or
another.

And why is Jenkins blaming social media companies for the stabbing of Rushdie?
Social media had nothing to do with it. Anonymity had nothing to do with it.
It's not about social media. It's not about publishers v. platforms (which is
not even a thing). I honestly don't understand the thought process behind this
column. Salman Rushdie got stabbed because of foolish people overreacting to a
book he wrote... and therefore, it is incumbent on us to blame anonymity and
social media platforms even though they had nothing to do with any of this.

How does shit like this get published in The Guardian?

On 2022-08-21 8:54 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/17/uk-columnist-because-salman-rushdie-got-stabbed-we-should-regulate-online-speech-get-rid-of-anonymity-and-hold-social-media-responsible/
>
> Over and over again, vocal supporters of free speech eventually seem to change
> their position when they realize people say things they don’t want to hear. It
> often leads to some seriously shifted rationales. The latest in this theme is
> Simon Jenkins, longtime UK journalist and currently a columnist for The
> Guardian in the UK, who has penned a truly bizarre column basically embracing
> ditching free speech online because Salman Rushdie got stabbed.
>
> Yes, you read that right. A journalist (the kind who normally supports free
> speech) wants to throw away free speech online because an author, who
> published a physical book before the internet was really around, and faced a
> fatwa from Iran for decades, got stabbed. And this is supposed to make sense.
>
> But of course he frames this taking away of free speech... as a defense of
> free speech. Because of course he does.
>
> The title kinda gives it away: "Do you want free speech to thrive? Then it has
> to be regulated, now more than ever."
>
> Umm... okay.
>
> The piece begins by talking about Salman Rushdie, who you likely have heard
> was stabbed recently, almost certainly in response to the decades-old fatwa
> issued against him over the (excellent and worth reading, by the way) "Satanic
> Verses" book. Now there are all sorts of reasons to talk about Rushdie's
> situation in the context of free speech, given that he's an example of what
> happens when government forces try to crack down on speech they dislike. But,
> it's unclear what this has to do with regulating online speech-- given that
> Rushdie wrote a book (which was published back before most people were on the
> internet) and was stabbed in person.
>
> The internet seems wholly disconnected from this issue. Except to Jenkins.
>
> Jenkins, weakly, tries to tie the issues together by leading us down a
> mythical garden path. In short, here is my paraphrase of the steps Jenkins
> drags us along: John Stuart Mill supported free speech... except in cases of
> harm to others... and using that logic, many countries banned Rushdie's
> book... because they didn't want people to take offense... and so now
> governments are criminalizing taking offense... including in the UK's Online
> Safety Bill.
>
> That all seems fairly tenuous as I could easily challenge many of the leaps of
> logic down that garden path. Either way, in just a few easy steps we get from
> Rushdie getting stabbed to the UK's attempt to regulate speech. And at least
> on this point, Jenkins makes a bit of sense. He rightly seems to dislike the
> UK's Online Safety Bill. And that's the right position to take if you support
> free speech, because, as we've noted in multiple articles, it would be a
> disaster for free speech. Jenkins recognizes that:
>
> The latest venture by the state into this morass is the Johnson
> government's online safety bill, with its bizarre concept of
> "legal but harmful" content. However well-intentioned, it seeks
> to monitor an astonishing range of evils and indisciplines,
> from online stalking to incitement to riot, from phony
> medicine to fake Russian news. How it will work has yet to
> be stated. It is a censor's charter-- or nightmare.
>
> Okay. We agree. The Online Safety Bill is bad and will be used for vast
> amounts of dangerous censorship. But then Jenkins seems to embrace it? And
> seems to think we need to pass it because of Rushdie. What's that got to do
> with Rushdie? Apparently it's because people were mad at Rushdie on the
> internet?
>
> Regulating the internet has become a major political
> challenge. Europe faced a similar crisis with the advent of
> printing and evolved licensing and copyright laws to handle
> it. The key then lay in identifying the author and the
> publisher. There had to be some accountability for the
> words. In contrast, the internet has led to an anarchy of
> dissemination. While Rushdie has authored a book and
> is accountable for it, many of his critics are part of that
> familiar social media feature: an anonymous mob
> howling after its victim across the ether.
>
> Um, what? Plenty of his critics, including the guy who issued the fatwa
> against Rushdie, the Ayatollah Khomeini, did so under their names. And it
> wasn't because of the internet. I'm sure there were some critics of him online
> who were anonymous, but what's that got to do with the fact that he was
> stabbed, in person, by a guy with a name?
>
> You can see where this is heading of course. Even as Jenkins rightly fears the
> impact of the UK's Online Safety Bill he's gone to what Jillian York has
> rightly called "the white man's gambit" and decided the real problem is only
> anonymity. For the attack on Salman Rushdie. Who has been living under death
> threats since a time when the internet barely existed and which had nothing to
> do with the internet in any way, shape or form.
>
> But Jenkins is somehow sure it's to blame.
>
> He throws in a weird paragraph saying "sure, sure, maybe anonymity might be
> important sometimes, but it can't be that important."
>
> Some claim anonymity helps whistleblowers and others--
> but such benefits are massively outweighed by the
> harm done by the unruly and unknown mob.
>
> "Some claim"? How about naming who is claiming that-- like actual experts on
> this topic, like the aforementioned Jillian York, along with tons of human
> rights experts who know that anonymity is essential to protecting all sorts of
> people (blithely summarized by Jenkins as "whistleblowers and others"). It
> protects way more than "whistleblowers"-- who actually are quite important. It
> protects marginalized people. It protects people in abusive relationships. It
> protects kids with different viewpoints from their parents. It protects
> critics of the rich and powerful. It protects everyone at some point or
> another.
>
> And why is Jenkins blaming social media companies for the stabbing of Rushdie?
> Social media had nothing to do with it. Anonymity had nothing to do with it.
> It's not about social media. It's not about publishers v. platforms (which is
> not even a thing). I honestly don't understand the thought process behind this
> column. Salman Rushdie got stabbed because of foolish people overreacting to a
> book he wrote... and therefore, it is incumbent on us to blame anonymity and
> social media platforms even though they had nothing to do with any of this.
>
> How does shit like this get published in The Guardian?
>
>
You know that the Guardian, formerly the Manchester Guardian, is a
long-time Leftist newspaper don't you? Not as far Left as the actual
Communist daily paper but definitely on the Left. They've been
"progressive" since forever. Finding them on the side of the
freedom-grabbers is not terribly surprising.

--
Rhino