| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 02:03 AM
Heello all,
This posting, taken from the New York Times, is hereby dedicated to all the
61 (so far) voters who have voted yes to that what-to-do-with-badmouthing-postings question in the poll section of this site.
To paraphrase Mr. Friedman: A few seasons of democracy, and [badmouthing postings] do not survive for long. When given a real choice, people usually
don't want to read postings from anonymous badmouthers.
Enjoy,
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
****************************
The Free-Speech Bind
March 27, 2002
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
So here's an interesting moral dilemma: I got e-mails last
week from Saudi and Egyptian friends encouraging me to
write a column about the Saudi poet who had been thrown in
jail for writing a fiery poem attacking Saudi judges as
corrupt.
The Saudi poet, Abdul Mohsen Musalam, in his poem "The
Corrupt on Earth," published March 10 in the newspaper
Al-Madina, wrote: "It is sad that in the Muslim world,
justice is suffering from a few judges who care for nothing
but their bank accounts and their status with the rulers."
He then added with amazing bluntness about the judges:
"Your beards are smeared with blood. You indulge a thousand
tyrants and only the tyrant do you obey."
Not only did the Saudi interior minister throw Mr. Musalam
in jail for this poem, but his editor, Mokhtar al-Fal, was
fired. So what's my dilemma? I should be all for free
speech - right? - especially in Saudi Arabia.
Not so fast. By accident, I met this poet on a recent trip
to Saudi Arabia and I tasted some other free speech he has
in him. Readers may recall that I noted in an earlier
column that at one newspaper I visited in Saudi Arabia, I
walked out after being told that the source of all the
problems today was that "the Jews control America." The
newspaper was Al-Madina, and the person who said that to
me, during a discussion, was Mr. Musalam. (His editor, who
apologized for him, was a good person, and I hope he gets
his job back.)
So what to do?
The only thing to do is to call on the Saudis to release
Mr. Musalam - not for his sake, but because a government
that is afraid of a poem only shows itself to be insecure
and as tyrannical as the poet charged. His charges should
be answered - but don't throw him in jail.
This incident, though, actually highlights a larger
dilemma: At the Arab summit meeting now being held in
Beirut, not one of the 22 Arab leaders represented has been
elected in a free and fair balloting.
But some experts ask: Why would we want to foster democracy
and a free press in that part of the world when we know
that many of those who would be elected or free to write
would be incredibly hostile to us? After all, we may not
like everything that Egypt's Hosni Mubarak or the al-Saud
ruling family in Saudi Arabia do - but they are more
liberal and pro-American than many of their people.
That's true, but Sept. 11 demonstrates how dangerous it is
for us to rely on that. Because the pro-Americanism of
these Arab leaders is being bought at a price of keeping
their own people so angry, so without voice and so
frustrated by corruption that they are enraged at both
their regimes and us. Stability in these countries is
achieved by these regimes' letting their people have free
speech only to attack America and Israel.
After all, the Al-Riyadh newspaper recently published an
article by a Saudi "professor" who alleged that Jews make a
holiday pastry that requires them to "drain the blood" from
a young Christian or Muslim, but the editor of Al-Riyadh
was not fired. Right now the only way you get a free voice
in most of the Arab press is by denouncing Israel and
America or praising your regime. That distorts the whole
political discourse.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 02:05 AM
"There is no way out of the dilemmas of the Arab world
without some political opening," says the Stanford
University democracy expert Larry Diamond. "But it doesn't
start by holding elections now. What is needed is a managed
political opening, coincident with economic reform, that
can generate a middle class with respect for the rule of
law and institutions.
It requires a gradual process, with a
vision from the top, that introduces pluralism into the
political life. The objective is to create a body of people
who can one day contest for power in a responsible way,
with the regimes keeping some reserve of power for
themselves as insurance."
Yes, when you open up such closed societies, crazy things
do fly out, like bats from a dungeon. Look at Poland and
Russia, where two of the first bats out were rabid
ultra-nationalist presidential candidates, Stanislaw
Tyminski and Vladimir Zhirinovsky. But after a few seasons
of democracy both are now long gone. When given a real
choice, people usually don't want to be ruled by jerks.
Sure, these transitions are tricky. They can go wrong. See
Serbia. But it's a worthwhile risk. Because context
matters. Change the context of how people live and you
change everything. And the current Arab context sure isn't
working in our favor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/27/opinion/27FRIE.html?ex=1018284065&ei=1&en=55a03a9c04d9f613
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 02:11 AM
Oh, by the way, I voted "no" to that poll ko question. Thanks to 34 other "nay"sayers.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| Koko |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 10:23 AM
Ashu,
I thought you were an advocate of free speech, but I guess I was wrong. I am really dissapointed with your NO vote. Lets say for example lets take your personal involment out of this whole free speech mess. If you had not revealed all your personal information in public... your outcome I think would be very different on this whole issue.
For me freedom of speech is being able to say whatever you want to say without holding back(without being arrested, or punished in any way). In other words saying it like it is. But we as a society put all sorts of restrictions on what is ok and what is not. In your case you want sources, and proof. But the question I think you should be asking is who are these people that are saying things about you? How did they know about all this stuff ? And the answer to that question I would say relies on the past threads. The answer is right there on the wall you just have to look for it.
As for accountability is concerned.... Who are you going to hold responsible ? Just look at the names. These are not real people. More than 75% of names that pop up over here are all assumed names. I comend your choice to use your own name to post things. I am sure there is reason behind it as well. You did so to get recognition. So people would associate you with your posting and judge you accordingly. You knew from the gitgo what you wanted, but things did not turn out as you thought it would. There has been quite a bit o mud slinging here with your so called sommerville gang. I cannot believe you are turning your back on free speech because of that.
Look at me for example... Who on earth is KOKO ? I don't know... And I don't care when people say shit to me because they don't know me. I have my friends here, Know what I am capable of. I don't have anything to prove to anyone...you know why cause they don't know me. People post a lotta crap here. Some are good, some are really crappy. But thats what you get with the freedom of choice. You cannot just get cream of the crop all the time. As they say variety is the spice of life. Thats what makes life so interesting. Every everything was the same or if there were only intellects posting stuff here....It would be a very boring place.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 11:45 AM
Koko,
With all due respect, I fail to understand your logic.
Never mind that anyone taking Stat 101 would immediately dismiss that poll question as being loaded, biased, inappropriately framed and all that.
But let's put that concern aside for now, and see what the question asks.
It asks:
"Do you support sajha.com's decision to not allow some posters to bad mouth other posters and throw obscene words directed at other posters?"
I voted: No.
That means: I, for one, do NOT support sajha.com's decision to not allow some posters to bad mouth other posters and throw obscene words directed at other posters.
In other words, as a visitor, I WANT sajha.com to actually allow "some posters
to bad mouth other posters and throw obscene words directed at other posters."
Now how is this an anti-free speech stance?
I voted no NOT because I enjoy seeing badmouthing of "good" posters by anonymous louts who use obscene words, but because I have this greater confidence in the COLLECTIVE ability of sajha dot comers to, on average, correctly decide for themselves what is plain garbage and what is worth
reading and believing.
Our readers, let us not forget, are collectively smarter than any one of us.
And so, as Tom Friedman argues in his essay quoting that Saudi thing, I am saying: Let there be a few seasons of democracy and free speech here on sajha.com. Only then, posters hurling garbage realize -- to everyone's
benefit -- that garbage gets you nowhere.
This is where Friedman's "Sure-these transitions-are-tricky-But [they pose] a worthwhile risk" argument applies.
And so, for our garbage posters to arrive at that "garbage gets you nowhere" realization, these posters must be FIRST allowed to post "garbage" and have their garbage go through an OPEN and FREE and FRANK exchange of views with
others who do NOT share their perspectives at all.
In other words, free speech -- and NOT censorship and NOT arbitrary decision by some do-gooder wielding power on behalf of the so-called majority-- is the BEST way to allow unpalatable views to surface so that they can be defeated in this marketplace of ideas.
So, don't be disappointed, Koko.
I still remain a free speech ko advocate, and I am sorry that you chose to misinterpret my stance. My thanks to 34 other fellow free speech advocates
for saying no to that question too.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| voodoo nut |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 12:50 PM
I am amazed at the lenght Ashu is going to show his distress over the poll in numerous threads. I do believe that no matter how this poll is worded, the majority would not want this site to allow "some posters
to bad mouth other posters and throw obscene words directed at other posters."
If Ashu feels that he can come up with a better worded poll that is not biased, I am sure the site admin would be happy to start a new poll. I would be interested to see what ashu comes up as an 'unbiased poll' that covers the matter at hand.
Let me quote my posting from couple of days ago:
"The analogy that comes to mind is that if you are organizing a public gathering for discussing issues, you have to make sure your speakers are protected against malicious audience who will start to throw stones at some users because of their personal problems. If the organizer cannot provide some sort of 'protection' to its speakers, the how can this kind of public gatherings sustain??
This forum is some sort of public gathering, where people voice their ideas and opinions. Without the checks to prevent malicious people from throwing stones at the speakers of this forum, this forum would eventually die out. "
|
| KOKO |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 02:01 PM
ASHU,
I got your point. Thanks for your explanation. But I still feel that its pointless holding people accountable when you don't even know who they are. There are all assumed names, they are not real people. If they were right there in front of you then its a different story. 75% Names are not real(psuedo-names). To hold these people accountalble you would have to track their ip address etc etc Now that a lotta-work, who's going to do it ? What I'm trying to say is that what you are proposing is not feasible with our current capacity and practicality.
"In other words, free speech -- and NOT censorship and NOT arbitrary decision by some do-gooder wielding power on behalf of the so-called majority-- is the BEST way to allow unpalatable views to surface so that they can be defeated in this marketplace of ideas."
Your statement above does not exactly refect free speech. Remember when we could not say anything about the Royals(back in the days) ? Is that your idea of free speech ? My understanding of free speech is being able to say anything(No holes barred). Once you punish someone for something they said then it not free anymore. Yes its free speech but with strings attached. I am not talking about Anarchy either. I am still puzzled. Are you talking about Democracy and not freedom of speech maybe ?
|
