In Both Sides Now, author and ethicist Leslie Cannold presents two sides of an argument and then we ask you: what do you think is true, and what do you think Cannold really believes?
Last week Cannold asked whether Trump’s Twitter ban was unfair censorship.
Here’s what you thought.
Venise Alstergren
Cannold makes an argument against the censorship of US President Donald Trump, the argument being, in part, because repressive governments end up hurting those who lack power.
CannoId is possibly correct. Indeed, most of the world’s wars and dictators have used a policy of no free speech to cause the deaths and mutilations of millions of people. If Nazi Germany, the Pol Pot regime, Stalin’s death camps, the wholesale genocide of people during World War II had been carried out in the full glare of publicity would they still have happened?
I think so.
Donald McMiken
An excellent piece by Cannold. Of course she favours the censorship placed on Trump’s lies and sedition. Now we need to have a go at the lies, sedition and childish economics of our own government. And the meaningless jumble of words from Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg et al that passes as policy but which is, in fact, simple-minded platitudes.
Jocelyn Dunk
Where Cannold sits is basically irrelevant given that she has fairly presented both sides of the argument (though I think that the bias is in favour).
As to whether Trump should be allowed to promote his sociopathic, dementia-ridden “ideas”? Absolutely not. There should, in all countries, be a psych evaluation of all persons running for public office (and an evaluation of sound business principles) which just might (maybe) help the planet avoid some of the straits that currently afflict it.
Lee Tinson
First, I don’t see that de-platforming Trump the way it was done and the reasons for which it was done should be viewed as censorship. It wasn’t done by the government, and big tech probably thought that in some way sponsoring criminal behaviour on their platforms was just bad for business.
Second, it’s always ironic that the people who claim their free speech is being attacked are the ones who are eagerly and loudly shouting out their nonsense, misinformation and outright lies freely to the world with never a thought for the responsibility that’s at least implied for them to deal with actual facts.
After all, the ban won’t stop Trump, although his goal with Twitter is to bring that sort of mass breathless immediacy to his base. It doesn’t give them time to think. And then of course they amplify with retweeting and the desire to have their own input ASAP.
I think that for the sake of national security it was fair for to shut this clown up, even if only temporarily, as a way of stopping all that stoking of fires that he does so well and could end so badly.
As for fairness for Trump: who on earth cares? He cares enough for fairness for himself (and without the least concern for anyone else) to make it absolutely unnecessary for anyone to even bother.
In the “against” side, my only point would be that the open letter from Noam Chomsky et al probably doesn’t hit the mark in this instance (although of course we have to agree with what it said) as we’re not talking about debate. Trump doesn’t debate. He just makes stuff up and then shouts everyone else down.
What does Cannold believe? Well, the against case seemed not to have had the same effort made as the for case, so I’m guessing she’s happy with what was done to Trump in this case.
Finally, clearly, I believe that Trump got just a little of what he deserved.
This week in Both Sides Now, Leslie Cannold will examine tattoos, labiaplasty and gender reassignment: when kids want to alter their bodies, do good parents always say no?
Turnbull and Rudd nailed it with: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. If the speaker is not prepared to accept responsibility, then the adults must impose restriction.
Big tech is evolving, especially social media via Facebook (with an older user audience while youth depart) but like most private or public companies they make their own terms of service, and also take into account relevant regulations.
Fact is they have been remiss or lax in applying their terms of service consistently e.g. high profile MP vs. normal person.
However, it would be easier if the govt. had clearer and a more explicit regulatory framework for digital services, like the EU has developed through consultation etc.; but htis then flies in the face of their supposed libertarian ideology and values?
The issue, especially for a LNP govt. is their dependence upon Facebook for PR and messaging, along with NewsCorp etc. whose commentators also seem dependent upon social media to increase profile; but now they want to dictate (via the LNP govt.) what Big Tech does or not, good luck with that.