Editing in an age of outrage
ft.com
ft.com
But we've never really conceived of an equivalent "Rule of Law" for reputational attack: both epistemically, to decide whether someone is actually guilty, and proportionally, to decide what is the proper social punishment and the appropriate path to redemption.
What's more, the internet has vastly increased the power of reputation attack, for better and worse: it's good that it's more difficult for an actual sexual predator to skip town and offend again, but bad that someone unjustly accused (including of lesser crimes) cannot restart their life. Instant world-wide communication has introduced a super-weapon, like going overnight from spears to aerial bombardment.
I frankly have no idea how we would go about constructing a Rule of Law for shaming. The distributed, bottom-up nature of the phenomenon is one of its strengths, able to act nimbly to respond to cases that the Law cannot; and each person's ability to make their own assessment of the character of others (including outsourcing that intelligence to the crowd) is a non-negotiable component of individual freedom, the Liberal Enlightenment tradition, etc.
But none of that changes the fact that every tweet can now carry the social equivalent of a tactical nuke. If we don't find a way to solve that problem, however imperfectly, we'll have to learn to live with a certain degree of unjust collateral damage, both to individuals and our social infrastructure.
Although a 'bit silly' I think there is also something to be said for 'the duel'. Participants have 'skin in the game'. Plus there is conduct and rules that you don't get in a street gang fight.
If I was a rich man I would like an antique set of duelling pistols, matched and in their antique case, there as 'art'.
Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.
They serve as a "conscience of the nation".
Like the German or Israeli presidents
On the bright side, the collateral from such situations is not always entirely negative. My (imperfect) words once fell "victim" to shaming on a popular social media website; while there was a large downside associated with this, I, much like the author, owned my opinion and clarified where needed. The outreach I received from those who actually mattered turned out to weigh more positively than the hatred from those who didn't.
What if that didn't work? Would justice have been served, or would an injustice have occurred?
I'm not trying to invalidate the OP's point, just showing how the social shaming from those who don't matter (TWDM™) can lead to a somewhat positive outcome. It's largely a matter of your sensitivity to the social pressure which in the author's case was very high (he lost his job).
Of course, when I think of embarrassment as a punishment I think the practice goes back centuries, I picture criminals put out on display in the village square for the public to shame. I don't know whether truth played a strong role even back then in that kind of public shaming. Have we or have we not made progress since medieval times?
The desire to punish cheaters is ancient and instinctual; but the other side of that coin is shaming a violator of norms (whether guilty or innocent) is also a group bonding experience, and potentially a selfish means for signaling one's moral high ground to the tribe. Rene Girard's Scapegoat Theory presents an interesting model of the phenomenon: https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#H3
That is, the right is restricted to the state.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious.
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
I can only hope we'll eventually outgrow it.
While these two situations are different, they have a lot in common:
- the casus belli often has nothing to do with the bully. Being fat is my problem (unless you sit next to me in the airplane). Me cheating my wife is between two of us. None of that should be anyone's business
- the purpose of both actions is hurting the individual, not correcting the behavior. Being beaten is an awful way to lose weight.
- both actions are collective. Those trying to confront the bully are risking to become the next victim.
I say no: at some point I don't want to be 'entertained' by someone I despise, even if I understand that this also impacts the rest of the band..
But if you start a public campaign to boycott his concerts in order to punish him further, that is akin to bullying.
I think this is the entire message of this article, and its one I wholeheartedly agree with too - suppression of speech, be it governmental or by internet mobs is detrimental to a free society.
Second, it's doubtful that allowing intolerant speech makes a society intolerant. After all, the society became tolerant when intolerant speech was allowed and accepted - why would this process now reverse itself?
And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed.
> why would this process now reverse itself?
Are you trying to argue that the process never does reverse itself? Because that does happen.
> And if it did reverse itself, perhaps there's a good reason for it - perhaps voters aren't happy with the fruits tolerance bore. It's a bit undemocratic to say that free speech philosophers know best how a society should be structured, and if the populace disagrees, they'll be censored until only permitted ideas may be expressed.
Thats what the makers of the Weimar Constitution thought.
It does, but it is not guaranteed to - not even close. So to claim a tolerant society can't exist without censorship is reaching.
Another possibility is that there are other mechanisms that can protect tolerance, such as a constitution that is very hard to change. The paradox of tolerance would not apply to societies that have such a mechanism, but still would be valid for others.
The question is what we do about intolerant speech.
I'd rather be able to spot the hateful people, than not know who they are and let them act on their hate in silence.
So all intolerant speech should be allowed, except for this speech that shouldn't be tolerated?
I have as much trouble with the government banning speech as I do with people getting doxed for saying something unpopular.
Saying something unpopular, but non-threat provoking shouldn't give your opponents carte blanche to do whatever they like.
Well-stated, though in his particular case I think Ian might've done himself a favor by publishing a piece by one of the accusers and their experience alongside the piece by Ghomeshi. I'm conflicted because I understand his point but I also understand the problem with giving someone in Ghomeshi's position a platform, which is that some will interpret it as a show of support for that person or even endorsement.
I think people should take full responsibility for their own personal interpretations. We worry way too much about how some people may interpret something. There are interpretations that are legitimate and others that are not, and we need to find the courage to state it clearly.
The problem is that we have granted a superior moral status to people who proclaim themselves as victims; and stretching the interpretation of something to claim the victim status has become extremely easy, because once you've attained it nobody dares to question your interpretation anymore.
Example: I say "A", you interpret it as "B", claim you're the victim of an offense. At that point I can't question your interpretation anymore because I'd be questioning your victimhood. Checkmate.
I think the current tendency to give self-identified victims more weight is simply a result of a pendulum swing after a long period where victims were given little to no consideration. That is to say, I think this is normal and will again swing the other way before too long. Obviously, the preferred state would be equilibrium, but I think we've got a ways to go before we reach that.
IMHO, that's a good thing, since I'll know who to ignore.
This is a very common refrain in the help-I'm-being-censored community, but I wish Buruma had tried to introduce some sort of evidence for this idea.
Ghomeshi's story is the opposite of that, since he was enormously well liked (including by me) prior to these several dozen accusations.
It should also be noted that, while Ghomeshi may have been well liked initially, he was not so well liked by the time he was "silenced", so the statement still holds true IMO.