For the
past few months the internet has been a buzz with fights and arguments over the
concept of Free Speech. Its been quite varied and heated. Recently Libcom.org
was the site of a textual slapfight with another blog, and while I don’t really
think the position offered is useful or even consistent it did get me thinking.
The blogs stated there is a difference between speech and acts, the example given was that it is justified and correct correct to fight say the British Union Fascists (BUF) because they represented a paramilitary threat (debatable) rather than just an ideological one. This isn’t a unique distinction liberals who favour maximum speech rights for all do often give a concession to physical defence against unambiguous violence. But the problem is that speech in itself can and often is a form of violence as well.
The blogs stated there is a difference between speech and acts, the example given was that it is justified and correct correct to fight say the British Union Fascists (BUF) because they represented a paramilitary threat (debatable) rather than just an ideological one. This isn’t a unique distinction liberals who favour maximum speech rights for all do often give a concession to physical defence against unambiguous violence. But the problem is that speech in itself can and often is a form of violence as well.
This
happens in a number of ways but one of the most common is the tactic of outing
someone. Outing is most commonly associated with queer individuals and Milo Yiannopoulos
himself a recent lightning rod for this argument outed a Trans student at a
University in Milwaukee, and is believed to have planned on doing the same to
undocumented students on the campus of the University of Berkley.
"I
didn't know if I was going to get attacked or not. I was just like, 'Dear god,
I hope nobody recognizes me.'"
"When
you have a room full of people that are just laughing at you as if you're some
freak of nature, like you have some kind of mental illness—which is how he
described me—it's like, I don't even know how to describe it, but it was way
too much,"
Now in this particular case the harassment remained verbal,
but it could very easily have had a darker ending, in 2015 21 people were
murdered for being transgender in the United States.[1]
In March of this year there have been seven recorded murders
of Transgender individuals recorded in the United States.[2]
There’s also been an increase in hate crimes recorded with
Transgender people being disproportionately targeted.
But this isn’t a situation unique to LGBTQ people, on the
contrary it’s a fairly common tactic that can be used against any group and
often is.
In El Salvador Roberto D'Aubuisson (pictured) the leader of the extreme right wing ARENA
party used to give televised speeches exposing people he claimed to be
communist terrorists. In addition to naming them would show photographs of them
so they could be recognized. Once outed if they didn’t escape (either abroad or
to the underground) they would disappear. Their bodies would usually be found
some days later showing signs of torture and mutilation.
“Having
established the principle, D'Aubuisson got down to specifics, marshaling
charts, photos, videotapes, and computer graphics for an intricately detailed,
name-by-name, face-by-face tirade against "El Salvador's terrorist
conspiracy."
D'Aubuisson denounced union
leaders, priests, academics, peasant organizers, students, professionals,
government officials, and Christian Democrats. Among those he named was
Archbishop Oscar Romero, whom he told, "You still have time to change your
ways." He also attacked Mario Zamora, a leading Christian Democrat and
member of the government who—like others identified in the broadcasts—was
assassinated in a matter of weeks. “[4]
Now
obviously the Salvadoran civil war is an extreme case but it does demonstrate
how speech can be used as a systemic tool of terror. And the only thing that
makes it extreme is the circumstances, denouncing political enemies both real
and imagined in the hopes or knowledge that fellow supporters will take care of
the problem for you is very common.
This was how Mcarthyism and the Second Red Scare worked.
Once someone was denounced as a suspected Red they were fair game for state
harassment and investigations, employers would fire them and they could be
publicly harassed and victimised. The once denounced the only way for a victim
to save themselves from further attacks was to publicly cooperate with HUAC and
denounce others.
And you don’t have to rely on state backing to pull of this off
the Fascists have made use of this for decades.
First they have an annoying habit of describing everyone and everything
in opposition to them or they just don’t like as Jewish. Now this tendency is
often cited as justification to write them off as loons, but there is method to
the madness. By denouncing someone as Jewish, or a Zionist or a Globalist
they’re telling their base to ignore what their targets are saying. And at the same time egging on local Fascists
to attack them because they’re not just dissidents they’re actively part of the
vast conspiracy against the nation or the white race etc.
For examples I’m spoiled for choice. Indeed so common is
this practice that it actually found me. I uploaded a video by Johnathan Meades
to youtube about architecture during the Nazi regime. Now I expected some
backlash but I was caught by surprise how much vitriol a documentary on urban
planning and statues would cause. Most of the negative comments were revolved
around Meades being a Jew and a liar, or just a Jew with the implication being
that as a Jew he’s lying. One commenter mentioned that Meades mother was
Jewish, which she was though she had a deathbed conversion to Anglcanism and
Meades himself is an outspoken atheist.
The reaction to this revelation caught me by surprise; it
was like a smoking gun to these people. The fact that this man has a connection
to Judaism was all the vindication they needed, the holocaust is a lie, because
that smug liberal on the screen has a Jewish mother. Like I said is easy to
dismiss these people, but unfortunately they are still quite capable of
considerable organized violence.
The White Nationalist website Stormfront is suspected of
being used as a platform for the occasional violent crime up to and including
murder.[5]
In April 2013 Italian users of the site were arrested for
publishing a list of names and encouraging violence against the people named.
“The blacklist included: Turin Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia;
Riccardo Pacifici, the President of the Jewish Community in Rome; Adel Smith,
the President of the Muslim Union of Italy; the Mayor of Padua, Flavio Zanonto;
several members of the judiciary; and journalist Gad Lerner, a Jew, and veteran
TV talkshow host Maurizio Constanzo. According to media reports, those on the
list were targeted because of their support for immigrants. Also listed were
then House Speaker Gianfranco Fini and then Minister for International
Cooperation and Integration Andrea Riccardi, who have both spoken out about
citizenship rights for immigrant children.”[6]
And it’s not just this one website there are others like Red
Watch. Red Watch is a catalogue of supposed communists with identifying
information. When I was 16 a friend of mine an inoffensive wooly liberal was
listed on the site with his photo and then address. Yes someone put a teenager
on a database used to target people.
Now nothing had happened to him thankfully at the time and
he and his family moved out of the area, (though now that I think about it that
could just mean someone attacked the house when other people were living there)
though the potential consequences can be serious. In 2006 (the same year my
friend told me he was on Red Watch) another person recorded on the site was
stabbed.
“What McFadden did not realise at the time was that he was
not being punched but stabbed. "I think it went on for a couple of minutes
before I managed to get the door closed. I turned round and my daughter was
screaming. It was only then, as I put my hand to my face and felt the blood,
that I realised what had happened."[7]
Oh and my speculation on my friends danger wasn’t completely
unfounded, far right types are active in my area, in 2013 a couple of them
attacked the local Mosque with petrol bombs, and the Synagogue has reported
severe vandalism on several occasions.[8]
Now there is more to this topic but it’s already getting
quite long so I’ll wrap up. I can anticipate some of the counter argument, that
these are all violent acts and should be opposed, but that’s the rub. Every
example I’ve cited was started and required the use of speech. The only way to
stop sites like stormfront and redwatch from exposing hundreds to potential
assault and murder is to shut them down. The only way to stop a politician
inciting attacks on the marginalized or a right wing zealot exposing queer and
migrant students to harassment is to remove their platforms for example causing
so much disruption that no venue will knowingly host such people. It isn’t
sufficient to attack and neutralise the ones who carry out the attacks, more
will take their place so long as the infrastructure remains intact. But we
can’t take effective action against any of this without infringing on another’s
freedoms of speech and expression.
___________________________________________________________________________________
