So, why did I feel more worried than proud when I listened to her recent UN speech?
The Prime Minister was as measured as ever, making sure to refer to ‘values of free speech’ in the same breath as she targeted online ‘disinformation.’
The modern internet does present some dangers. Authoritarian states use social media as a weapon. The Prime Minister clearly had Putin’s Russia in mind when she asked how we can end wars that combatants have come to view as ‘not only legal but noble.’
So far, so good – if Ardern is signalling a renewed effort to think hard about Russian bots and other online dangers, balancing our desire to do something about the problem with long-established rights to do with freedom of expression.
It was the next couple of questions that gave me more questions about what Ardern really has in mind.
‘How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?’ she asked. ‘How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?’
Dealing with nay-sayers and holdouts can definitely be frustrating, especially when the need for change seems urgent. But disagreement is part and parcel of the democratic process, not to mention something that’s protected by the fundamental liberal right of free expression.
As the Christchurch massacre made clear, there is also a very real danger of ‘hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology’ prompting horrific acts. But as the government’s recent efforts to frame new ‘hate speech’ laws showed, attempts to set limits on speech invariably raise a host of complex issues to do with where those limits are placed, and who patrols them.
The Prime Minister is reportedly working on some new suggestions for online content regulation with her cabinet. Hopefully they will take the issue with the seriousness it deserves, and make a genuine attempt to deal with online risks while also preserving the benefits of online expression. They should also make sure any major new limits on free speech have significant buy-in from New Zealanders.
Until we get more clarity on exactly what they have in mind, though, I’m going to go on feeling more worried than proud.
The modern internet does present some dangers. Authoritarian states use social media as a weapon. The Prime Minister clearly had Putin’s Russia in mind when she asked how we can end wars that combatants have come to view as ‘not only legal but noble.’
So far, so good – if Ardern is signalling a renewed effort to think hard about Russian bots and other online dangers, balancing our desire to do something about the problem with long-established rights to do with freedom of expression.
It was the next couple of questions that gave me more questions about what Ardern really has in mind.
‘How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists?’ she asked. ‘How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?’
Dealing with nay-sayers and holdouts can definitely be frustrating, especially when the need for change seems urgent. But disagreement is part and parcel of the democratic process, not to mention something that’s protected by the fundamental liberal right of free expression.
As the Christchurch massacre made clear, there is also a very real danger of ‘hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology’ prompting horrific acts. But as the government’s recent efforts to frame new ‘hate speech’ laws showed, attempts to set limits on speech invariably raise a host of complex issues to do with where those limits are placed, and who patrols them.
The Prime Minister is reportedly working on some new suggestions for online content regulation with her cabinet. Hopefully they will take the issue with the seriousness it deserves, and make a genuine attempt to deal with online risks while also preserving the benefits of online expression. They should also make sure any major new limits on free speech have significant buy-in from New Zealanders.
Until we get more clarity on exactly what they have in mind, though, I’m going to go on feeling more worried than proud.
James Kierstead is Senior Lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington.This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
"Hopefully they will take the issue with the seriousness it deserves....." Dream on James. The same way they have dealt with Three waters, separatism in Health and Maori wards?
It is quite hard for us to take in, we who have been brought up to believe in ethics, truth-telling 'fair-dos'. But this administration know deep in their hearts that they are right (left? no way!) and that they have to sacrifice their scruples in the interests of "justice" and the greater good of the tribe.
Tribalism is not 'wrong' - it is an earlier way of behaviour which enabled humanity to arrive at a broader manner of thought (Kelvin Davis hasn't got there yet) There is no excuse for him, but even less for those who have had the benefit of the Classics you teach and should be able to trace the evolution of society.
Whatever their private thoughts, (and I cannot believe they can all be so credulous) these people have to be defeated - please God - and supplanted by those of broader understanding - Oh Dear!
Regulations or legalisation will drive any hate underground as it does with surely its better to expose it for all to see and establish their own thoughts regarding online rhetoric. It can not be for Ms Ardern to decide what is to be said or not, she is herself an opinionated "lucky priminister" who'sacting well beyond her brief I think. The local election maybe an indication of what's in store for miss Ardern, here's hoping.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.