Kupala Night is a traditional Slavic festival that was originally celebrated on the shortest night of the year between the 21st and 24th June, however in Eastern Slavic countries according to traditional Julian Calendar it is celebrated between the 67th and 7th July (Belarus, Russia and Ukraine). The celebration relates to the summer solstice. In any event it has a long history.
Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko, attending the festival apparently said::
“We know that Belarusians’ striving for independence is explained by unsubmissive and freedom-loving nature of our ancestors who never were slaves or slave owners. And never in their history were they aggressors, quite the opposite, they always tried to maintain peace and accord with their closest neighbours. Therefore, the unity of the people of Belarus in their ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is unshakable…We are trying to stick to these traditions today. Hence our entire policy. We do not claim foreign lands. We do not want to cause trouble for our neighbours and distant nations. We want to live in peace and harmony with everyone…That is why we cannot allow anyone to think of us as of slaves. More than that, we cannot allow ourselves to turn into slaves. We are a nation. A nation who, for the first time in hundreds of years, built their independent and sovereign state that always differs from others in terms of character, morals and traditions. We are Belarusians and we have all features of a nation. These national traits come from the depth of history. It was not me who invented them,”
I cannot begin to describe the depths of hypocrisy these statements provoke. Similarly we have Donald Trump claiming that there are lies being told about him by “them” and if “they” repeat the statements often enough, people might believe “them”. He says this while he repeats for the umpteenth time that the election was a fraud. He has no idea of what he actually says. He is now seeking to bring an action against various media companies and their CEO’s for denying him freedom of speech. In doing so he is inviting people to send him money to help in his litigation. Why does he need to raise funds? He is meant to be a billionaire, a couple of million dollars would surely cover the costs, even in a US court. Pocket change for him. Do his followers not know that?
In any event, he is constantly reported on the news. His actions are reported on in the United States on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, Newsmax etc. In addition his antics are covered by the BBC, France 2, RTL in Germany, RAI in Italy, and all major television networks throughout the European Union and Sky Satellite Television across the world. So in what way is his freedom of speech being curtailed. This frivolous lawsuit, is actually a ploy to increase media coverage by claiming his constitutional rights are being diminished by not being allowed on Facebook and Twitter. The implication of course is that both those social media companies have a far greater audience and influence over the internet, than the whole of the world’s television and radio networks around the globe. The digital world is clearly of greater value to Mr Trump and his followers than the reality of the physical world. To be shut out is clearly a difficulty for him, although not a great difficulty given the amount of material currently on line in spite of being barred from Facebook and Twitter.
Therein lies the problem of freedom of speech. Every country subscribes in one way or another to the concept of free speech. Some countries do seem to have a curious idea of free speech and seek to control what is actually said by people exercising their right to speak freely; however, what goes out on the internet (such as this blog) is, to all intent and purposes, entirely free from censorship or control of any kind. A keyboard and an internet connection are all that is required. Any smartphone will do. There are any number of sites on which one can post or display words, images and sounds.
As a result every form of behaviour is attached in some way to the world wide web. We have pornography of all kinds, adolescent grooming, financial scams, ransom threats, chicanery and deception of all sorts, as well as how to do it yourself stuff, lectures from noted university professors, artistic exhibitions, theatre, analysis programs, forums, informative useful stuff as well as the ability to order in supplies, books, entertainments and paid for work. The list is endless and it is essentially uncensored and practically impossible to control. So how does one deal with the freedom of speech of the scammer, the hate monger, the deviants and the dangerous?
There are laws already in existence to deal with some criminal activity provided one can trace the originator’s whereabout. Laws relating to thievery and dishonesty of any kind are explicit and so long as one can pinpoint the person concerned, there is no need for any additional legislation. Likewise laws relating to the protection and safety of the person’s physical being are sufficient, provided one can find and trace the perpetrator. Committing the crime with a digital record is handing the evidence to authorities as it is being produced. The difficulty is always tracing the origins of that evidence. We know that is sometimes not an easy thing to do.
What is more problematic is the dissemination of ideas and points of view. Prejudice and bigotry are not so easy. The likes of Lukashenko, Putin, Trump, their acolytes, fervent supporters and imitators are all able to spew their poison and hypocrisy over the web, just as I am able to post a blog.
The fact that I refer to these people as gangsters may be very offensive to many people. That their behaviour and its consequences are actually recorded for all to see, provides me with some evidence, but is it conclusive evidence? Is my interpretation of the facts I observe, and take in, a correct view? Many will think not. I am free to speak, but should what I say be controlled and if so, by whom or what?
One cannot escape the fact that, as well as some very worthwhile stuff, real harm is being done over the internet. It is a global problem and clearly requires a global solution. There are some sites in one country that are unavailable in others. Although I can gain access to some programs on the French ARTE network, I cannot gain general access in the same way that I can to BBC’s iPlayer. Nonetheless the web is universal and although gaining access to some sites can be controlled by the site controller, there are clearly ways round as can be shown by any competent hacker. I am not one, not even of any kind.
So we come back to the question of regulating the global network itself or the ability to gain access to the global network. Does it even need to be done? If so, then how? These are problems I currently ponder, given the state of the current world I live in. Any ideas would be welcome.
If it is
to be left to the state and its legislative process to produce an answer, then
I have little faith in the likes of Boris and his Gang to reach any acceptable solution
so far as the UK is concerned. That bit
of free speech will obviously offend some, like Boris and his Gang. They might
even try to suppress it. What do we do?
No comments:
Post a Comment