2G17 - 5: Freedom of speech

[Calbrena]

Discuss.

At first I was thinking of making this thread purely as a joke, but I'm actually interested in your thoughts on the matter in the grand scheme of things. I suppose this should be about propaganda too, since propaganda is usually linked to freedom of speech, in one way or another.

I've lived in several dictatorships, so this is a bit of a touchy subject for me, because as a foreigner working in a more or less "diplomatic" area I had to heavily practice self-censorship on a daily basis. Which is something us Frenchies don't really like to do, even when we disagree with our more powerful friends. To us, being able to voice our disagreements openly and loudly is like the number one most important thing in life. I've noticed this is not necessarily true in all cultures, where disagreeing with your hierarchy or someone with a higher social standing in public is frowned upon. (Hello East Asia! ) I know there's also for sure a difference in tones acceptable to use depending where you are, and some people make a point in being super blunt. (Hi Nederlanders! )

Now, in theory we all live in Western countries, so we all agree freedom of speech is a good thing. But in practice, how do social interactions work in your country? Does everyone have the same degree of freedom, or not? What about interactions when the power balance clearly makes two individuals unequal? This isn't another "Trump" thread, but obviously the current situation makes me wonder about all these things (and I think Trudeau is a very wise man).

Now, on propaganda. Censorship of fake news seems like a "sensible" thing to do, but is it? And if one decides not to censor it, how can they insure propaganda won't win? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? From a North American point of view, this probably doesn't seem like much, but upcoming French elections are apparently subjected to Russian propaganda (and hacking) as we speak. German elections too, I assume. Fun times.

So, what's the actual role/status of free speech in the Society you live in, and do you think it's doing its job? In your opinion, is the intarweb helping it, or threatening it? How do you think current and recent events are going to influence the future of free speech online and/or irl?

[Lord Golbez]

Seems like this topic is very important in light of current events. I'd say when the POTUS attacks his critics and calls real journalists fake news, we're in serious danger of having our freedom of speech eroded here.
Censorship of fake news is problematic, especially when it gets to the question of who is doing the censoring. Because that can very easily become censorship of real news and lifting up propaganda as the only "real news." How to overcome the deceptions of fake news is not an easy question to answer though.
I definitely think free speech is doing some of its job. One of the biggest functions of free speech is to let the government know when it's doing something wrong. And people are sure doing that now. It remains to be seen if it will be effective enough, but I think it's playing its role. However, I think free speech is worth more than just its role in society. It's a measure of freedom itself, which is good of itself.
As far as the internet goes, I think it can work for both good and bad because it helps spread ideas from everyone. For now, I would say the balance is on the side of good, but lose net neutrality and that could easily swing the balance way off in the other direction.

[Calbrena]

I have to say, I am impressed by free speech in America. People seem like they really stand up for what they believe in, activism is a real thing. It's definitely a good thing. But what about free speech in the corporate/business world? Strong unions are also part of a healthy Society allowing free speech imho, but do people also see it that way over here? And in general, is free speech something real for "weaker" members of Society, or mostly something for the rich and powerful?

[Lord Golbez]

Certainly the rich and powerful have more of a platform for their voices to be heard, but I don't know if that equals more freedom of speech. Sometimes it might even be less in some respects. I guess there's a valid question of how much the freedom of speech does for weaker members of society. In terms of effecting change it's probably fairly limited (although strengthened by many voices together). I have genuine concerns about my freedom of speech under this administration, but have never felt limited in it before. Of course, I'm not really one of the weakest member per se, but I'm also not rich and powerful either.

[Calbrena]

What about your freedom of speech at work? Could you get in trouble for openly disagreeing with your hierarchy?

[Lord Golbez]

Um...I mean I have to worry about the Hatch Act, because I'm a federal employee. I do openly disagree with my hierarchy sometimes though, but will ultimately do what they say if they maintain their position. I mean immediate supervisors though. I don't even talk with people higher up the chain, generally. I don't know. I'm very vocal about my opinions with colleagues, but if I were just mouthing off in general it might be a problem.

[Calbrena]

What's the Hatch Act?

[Lord Golbez]

It's a law limiting the political activities of federal employees. Especially while on duty, at their place of work, in performing their role, or using their job title, but not completely limited to that. They can't run for public office in partisan elections for example. They can still express opinions about candidates though, so no worries.

[Calbrena]

Oh, ok. Makes sense I guess. Many civil servants wouldn't even be allowed to say anything about candidates tbh. At least I'm pretty sure it's the case in the U.K., for example.

[Lord Golbez]

Well, you do have to be a bit careful about expressing an opinion in your place of work, because that can be seen as an endorsement of a candidate, but I never actually endorse candidates, because I'm always just critical. So, I pretty much only say stuff to people I know.