I know of the far left, I’d say lunatic Left group Novara Media. I don’t normally give it much of a thought other than to be marvelled at how an attractive women like Ash Sarkar, one of the group’s key people, could be so enamoured of such an ugly and destructive ideology as Socialism. Also some of the personalities that Novara promotes like Aaron Bastani, have, as with his gushing account of the ‘new’ Taliban, caused me to vomit in my mouth a little bit.
If you wanted to create a modern media organisation that would do for Socialism, an ideology with a massive megadeath toll across its entire history what the fake news expert Walter (I see no famine) Duranty did for Joseph Stalin in the 1920’s, then you would probably end up with something that looked a lot like Novara Media. It is a Communist polemical organisation, dedicated to painting this failed ideology in a good light.
I have very little as regards political views in common with Novara Media. My views as a centre right civil nationalist are a pole apart from the views pushed by Novara. But I find myself in the position of having to stand up for their right to speak.
Apparently Novara have been yeeted from You Tube. You Tube axed their channel but seem to have reinstated it. Although I dislike Novara and despise their worldview, I don’t think they’ve done anything that I would consider deserving of being removed, such as directly and credibly calling for violence.
Novara put out this statement earlier today.
If the story about the removal of Novara Media’s You Tube channel is correct then I must say that this is something that I deplore. Censorship is wrong no matter who does it or whether the target is from the Left or the Right. Novara, even though I cannot stand them and believe them to be deluded knobheads flogging a dead horse called Socialism, they still should be allowed the right to speak.
However there is a delicious irony about Big Tech coming for Novara Media. A while back someone who is said to be Novara’s video editor defended the right of Big Tech companies to remove any user they wanted from their platforms.
He said:
But, when the censors come for Novara, this person sings a very different tune:
I must admit that this shows massive levels of hypocrisy coming out of Novara. They called for the censorship of others but eventually the censors came for Novara.
Despite the hypocrisy, despite the pushing of the proven to be lethal ideology of Socialism, I call for Novara to be allowed to speak and speak freely on You Tube.
Yes, I basically agree with you, but isn’t it also about a ‘brand’ image rather than rather than exclusively censorship?
The freedom we have nowdays on social media is astounding compared to what our forerunners had only a few decades ago, then it really was only about face to face meetings, leaflets printed on Gestetners, and possibly never getting a letter published in the local press.
It’s not reasonable maybe to expect social media companies to provide free platforms for all? They are essentially publishers, as in the older days publishers had criteria for publishing books, i.e. sellable, not unduly offensive.
So of course with the new media we have all sorts of stuff going on about ‘hate speech’ and the possibility of prosecutions. If I may ask, where do you stand on the ‘freedom of speech’ for antisemites for instance?
There could be a ‘brand image’ thing going on which is to Novara’s benefit as it makes them look more edgy. I certainly agree that there are more outlets for more people these days than there once was. I remember the Gestetner days and also people using second or third hand photocopiers to put out ‘zines whether political in nature or music related. I also remember that for gigs or events or demos leaflets were essential even though it seemed that the hit rate for one event I ran was about 5 or 10% by which I mean out of 100 leaflets distributed only 5 or 10 more customers were found.
The problem is that there is a big difference between a platform and a publisher, especially in the USA where most social media firms are domiciled. It’s legally advantageous to be a platform as then the company is not liable for any content on that platform. If they were considered as publishers then every person ‘offended’ by something or who didn’t like a users comment would be able to sue the platform. Policing a social media platform if was a publisher would not only mean the company would have to spend enormous amounts on monitoring content and also have a greatly expanded legal section to back up the policing. I completely understand about the concept of ‘sellable but not unduly offensive’ but Lady Chatterley was a big selling book and some people found that unduly offensive and there was a very famous court case over that.
I’m glad you asked about the freedom of speech for those who are generally considered as ‘nasty’. I’m Jewish and I despise anti-Semites. I hate what they are and I hate what they say. However I also want, for reasons of my own protection, want to know what they are saying, who they are saying it to and whether or not these idiots are being listened to or if the guff they spout is being taken seriously. I’m a Gab user because I like the free speech fundamentalism that I find there although the cost of that is to have anti Jewish nutcases pop into my timeline. It’s less of a problem there than it used to be as more ‘normal’ people have gradually turned up. At one point I seemed to be being called a ‘Kikeservative’ at least once a day on there but the nutters on there appear to be getting drowned out by ‘normies’ and there are more people both Jewish and non-Jewish, for example the user Johann Cater, who enjoy mocking the Jew haters.
As for hate. This is an emotion and I don’t believe that you can legislate against hate anymore than you can legislate for love. I would rather those with bad ideas whether it be hating Jews or racialists or those who believe falsely that vaccines cause autism were defeated in open debate or were soundly mocked by sensible people, than have them disappear into dark corners whether online or in real life, where they can fester, radicalise or not be subjected to questioning, or examination or mockery. I believe in a marketplace of ideas even if some of the goods on display in the market are a bit shoddy. From my reading of history, the media played its part in one of the darkest parts of the 20th century, the Nazi regime, but the Nazis were able to convince the citizens of a cultured nation like Germany to behave like beasts not because there was free speech and an open media environment where all ideas could be aired, but because the Nazis had engineered a situation where only the voices of one side, the government side, were able to be heard in Germany. A lack of free speech meant that only one side got heard and there were severe penalties for listening to Allied radio stations, distributing leaflets asking awkward questions about the regime or even speaking ill of the Uni-testicled Austrian. I’m not saying that freedom of speech would have prevented the rise of the Nazis, but it might have given them more opposition.
I don’t believe in ‘hate speech’ laws. I take the view that they do not reduce hatred but they do restrict freedoms. I’d like to see countries like the UK have something similar to the US First Amendment which although it guarantees the citizen the right to speak, even if what they are saying is rubbish, does have necessary restrictions on shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre when there is no fire or immediately and credibly inciting violence against persons or property. I consider myself to be a free speech fundamentalist but the limited restrictions on speech as per the US FA are ones that I see as both reasonable and necessary.
Free speech presents us with some big ethical dilemmas. We might not like what someone is saying, what they are saying may even be false or offensive or, as in the case of the Flat Earth types, completely and utterly mad. But if we agree to the censorship of people like this, even the most disgusting mad and degrading of them, then how can we cry out for help when other censors come for us?
Sorry, one *rather than* extra needs deletion!
Yes, and thanks for such a detailed response. A problem I have is that many groups and individuals with strong political views block all opposing points of view in their feedback and comments. You do not appear to do this?
I try not to block anybody unless they are lunatics no matter what sort of politics they follow. Although I have strong political views I don’t want to live in any sort of echo chamber. Echo chambers can be fun for a short time but if you stay in one too long then you can end up not being able to hear what’s going on outside and what might be going on outside could be interesting, informative, enlightening or funny. I take it as a matter of pride that I’m equally disliked by the Far Left, the Far Right, conspiracy theorists, identity politics extremists and Islamists. I’d rather let someone with an opposing view speak and either tell them why I believe that they are wrong (hopefully relatively politely) or even let someone speak something that I might vehemently disagree with but state that I respect their view but personally disassociate myself from it.