Internet Censorship

Imagine hearing of murders, rapes, and other violence done by particular groups in countries outside of your own. Many in these same groups can be seen in the media expressing hatred for certain aspects within your own culture, as well as calling for their own traditions, religions, and legal systems to displace your own. Because this is not happening in your own country, you do not think much of it, even if you disagree with these groups. Now imagine your own government starts to welcome these groups into your own country, and even into your own area, without asking those living in the area what they think about it. You become frustrated with the situation and begin to make posts, that some consider offensive or hate speech, on Facebook. Shortly thereafter, you are arrested for your posts to social media.

This may sound like something we are more likely to find in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, or some other dystopian work of fiction, than in the supposedly free Western world. However, this very series of events did occur in the Iverclyde area of Scotland in 2016. According to the British newspaper, The Guardian, an unnamed man was arrested under the United Kingdom's Communications Act, after making offensive posts relating to Syrian migrants on Facebook. 

Many Americans, and indeed many in the West, wholeheartedly believe that an individual has the Right to speak as they please. Aside from prohibitions on making threats or advocating for violence, many think that governments should not have the power to silence an individual's real, spoken voice. If we in the West hold this belief, an individual's written communications must also be afforded the same protections, whether they are written in ink or on the Internet. It is not enough to simply claim something is offensive or hateful as a justification for censorship, and by extension, Internet censorship. Censorship itself is an act against property rights, and so must only be done when the property rights of an innocent party are being infringed upon; censorship under any other circumstance is an act of aggression.

Unfortunately, not all in the Western world believe speech must be protected, even when it may be considered by some, or even many, as offensive or hateful. Sean McElwee, a policy analyst at the non-profit public policy think tank Demos, is one such individual. McElwee puts forward the proposition that the Internet should be censored to stop what he perceives as dangerous hate speech. While McElwee agrees that certain segments of the population may not agree with such censorship, he believes any negatives, which may arise from Internet censorship, are outweighed by the benefits.

McElwee's online article is full of identity politics, and lacks logical thought processes as well as any basic philosophical tools. Perhaps the most glaring example is that he does not break down censorship into how it is manifested in the real world, rather than on paper and on the Internet. Like firearms, jumbo-sized soft drinks, tobacco, and other objects, speech is not something that can be regulated. There exists only one class of things subject to legislation - individual human beings. The final manifestation of censorship is not law enforcement pointing its firearms at offensive words, but at innocents who have done nothing other than speak their minds. Are the feelings of those who may be offended by speech more important than lives of those who may be taken for simply uttering something offensive?

Another point McElwee makes is that intimidating, and so-called hate speech, result in a monopolization of speech itself. This demonstrated his lack of understanding, or outright disregard, for logical thought processes and the meaning of “monopoly”.

Hate speech cannot logically monopolize speech, because monopolization does not occur via speech, but through actions. Feeling intimidated is not the same as being intimidated; feelings are subjective, while the act of intimidation is objective. Real monopolization of speech comes when one individual or group displays threatening behavior that makes other reasonable individuals or groups fear for their physical safety, because such threats are guaranteed to be followed by physical assaults. This occurs when governments pass legislation targeted at particular forms of speech; legislation results in the guarantee of force being used against those who violate said legislation. Legislation is, in reality, intimidation backed up by force.

Additionally, when an individual or group feels threatened by another individual or group, they often have a reasonable assurance of being able to defend themselves against physical attacks from such threats. However, when an individual or group is attacked by agents of a state, they have no reasonable defense. Even if they repel or kill state agents, more will come, and will eventually defeat and probably murder those who were defending themselves. This is another demonstration of the real monopoly, which is a monopoly on force within a geographical area.

The question should be, does making particular forms of speech illegal result in a potential decrease in the application of force, or a potential increase? The answer is simple; speech does not result in the application of force, while very nature of legislation does. Even when no legislation is violated, government agencies that monitor speech and administer justice when speech falls outside of acceptable limitations must still be funded. Such funds are extracted from the populace via taxation, ultimately and as before, at the point of a state agent's firearm.

Censoring speech and the expression of ideas some may find offensive, but which in reality threaten nobody, is not new in the West. Perhaps the most notable examples are found in Austria and Germany, where legislation exists regarding Nazism and the Holocaust.

Sara Lyall, a contributor to the New York Times, reported on the arrest of David Irving in Austria, suspected with the crime of Holocaust denial. While the intent of various pieces of legislation covering Nazism and the Holocaust may have been honorable, the real-world application of legislation is rarely honorable. Irving said many things that some people find offensive, but he never made threats, stole property, or assaulted another. Because of mistakes made by earlier generations, he was taken into custody, again ultimately at the point of a firearm, for essentially committing a “thought crime.”

With the relatively recent call for making various forms of so-called hate speech illegal, there has also been a rise in the belief that those who deny climate change should be prosecuted in some way. This can be viewed similarly to the previous example of David Irving's Holocaust denial.

In her Washington Post article, Valerie Richardson reviews the failure of California Senate Bill 1161 to pass through the California Senate. The bill, known as the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have opened the door to prosecuting businesses and groups the State determines to have mislead the public on climate change issues, as well as those who have supported these businesses and groups. She covers the backing of S.B. 1161, much of it coming from private interests like the Union of Concerned Scientists and environmental groups. Under such a bill, the mere refutation of anthropogenic climate change, or disagreement with certain aspects of the issue, could become illegal based on the interpretation a particular executive or judicial agency holds. These refutations and disagreements are often labeled by anthropogenic climate change proponents as “climate deniers.”

The articles from Lyall and Richardson demonstrate a push by some individuals and groups to return to the religious zealotry of centuries past. Socrates was charged with impiety against the pantheon of Athens in classical Greece. In Medieval Europe, many people who refused to adhere to Church traditions and dogma, or denied Christian deities, were persecuted. Deities of the past have been removed from much of society, leaving unfilled holes into which certain social, political, and pseudo-scientific ideas have taken hold. Some people today seek to prosecute those who they believe guilty of impiety against prevailing opinion, consensus, or beliefs. This is, in reality, a religious-like desire to prosecute those who are against what the majority believes, or appears to believe; a desire to mute that which is against the beliefs of the demos.

How would a civilization prevent undesired speech, and distribution of outright harmful material such as child pornography, without resorting to muzzling speech using censorship? One answer lies in adhering to a non-aggression principle (NAP), or something very near to it, and by extension, protecting absolute property rights. Most proponents of the NAP and absolute property rights are under no delusions; they understand that these two concepts do not eliminate offensive speech and things like child pornography. However, they do understand that these concepts are much better options than censorship.

Any discussion of a concept such as property rights must begin with the origin of such rights. In his book  The economics and ethics of private property: Studies in political economy and philosophy, Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe covers how property rights organically arise as a method to reduce conflict over scare resources. He examines the special case found in a hypothetical Garden of Eden, where the only scarcities are the location of, and volume that, an individual's body occupies. Hoppe then moves on to the more general case of all-around scarcity to demonstrate and justify property rights. He demonstrates all of this using explanations and logic free from contentious, “magical thinking” issues like religion and state power. With these issues removed from the equation, more attention can be given to the thought processes justifying property rights and explaining their origin.

In short, Hoppe describes the origin of property rights, starting with ownership of one's own body. If one individual is not allowed exclusive ownership of his or her own body, then who else is to exercise partial or complete ownership of it? What happens when an individual wishes to use their body for one purpose at the same time another wishes to use it for a different purpose? Does this result in an escalation of conflict or a decrease in conflict? The answer is that it results in an escalation, and that any other arrangement other than exclusive ownership of one's own body results in an escalation of conflict.

Hoppe employs the same logic when considering ownership of that which one's body produces, both positive and negative. If an individual works the land, mixing their labor with the soil, they exclusively own the crops resulting from said labor. Likewise, if an individual murders another person, they own, and become subject to, the possible consequences of doing so. This concept of property rights extends across the spectrum, to things such as land, homes and businesses, computers, internet services, firearms, and so on. The freedom to speak as one pleases is also an extension of this concept, for who else is to control an individual's mouth but individuals themselves? Finally, these concepts also extend to entering into explicitly voluntary contracts, and preclude the idea of some “social contract.”

Given this framework, even something as wretched as child pornography on the Internet, for example, can be adequately dealt with. Distribution of child pornography is not speech problem, and the solution is not to limit free speech.  Child pornography is a problem stemming from the violation of property rights – rights of the child to control their body. Just as one person cannot use or profit from the property of another person without consent, pornographic material cannot be distributed without consent of the child. In most cultures around the world, children are not viewed as full moral agents, and so are unable to consent. Under this system, any party distributing such material would immediately be forced to cease distribution and destroy all copies of it. In this light, we see the similar results can be achieved by recognizing property rights as are achieved by censoring Internet content. However, the results for all individuals within a society are better because they are not being censored, and there are far fewer statutes intruding on their lives.

Respecting absolute property rights also benefits groups considered by some as minorities. By removing legislation outlawing or limiting the carrying of firearms and the use of them in self-defense, minorities have are better able to defend themselves against attacks. Rather than giving minorities a false sense of security by censoring offensive and “hate speech” on the Internet, minorities would be able to provide their own real security.

When a true respect for absolute property rights is developed in a society, the possibility of violence decreases because only actions that infringe on the property rights of others are prosecuted. Legislation that creates “victimless crimes” may exist, but is severely limited, much like in the Common Law roots of the United States, Britain, and many Commonwealth Nations.

One area democracies fail in is the protection of the smallest minority, that is, the individual. When the individual expresses ideas contrary to the majority, they may be ostracized. However, when the majority are able to work though a government, they can legitimize doing far worse than ostracism to dissenters. They can bar them from certain trades, seize their property, imprison, and even murder them. The choice is ours. Do we choose to limit violence by limiting government power and respecting property rights? Alternatively, do we instead opt for further eroding what little is left of property rights in favor of transferring more power to governments, and therefore consent to increase the potential for violence? Even if we do not embrace the NAP, do we at least choose to return to a system more in-line with our Common Law roots, or continue down the road of Roman civil law and its multitude of ever-increasing edicts that make simple actions illegal?