There are two types of social force: physical violence, and attack on reputation (shaming). However imperfectly, we instantiated The State as a monopoly on violence, subjecting violent force to The Rule of Law; while the success of that enterprise is hotly contentious, it's fair to say it works at least sometimes (exonerating some innocents who might simply be killed under pure tribal dynamics; allowing some who are guilty to redeem themselves after "paying their debt to society").
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.
We used to have a way to deal with reputational attack, the duel. If a gentleman's reputation is attacked, he may demand satisfaction from the offender. The offender could reject the duel at the cost of being known as a coward. If the duel is accepted, honer is restored to the victor of the duel. So much more elegant, faster, cheaper then the current system of lawyers and judges and various other third parties who all want to be paid. Bring back the duel!
Curiously the duel died out. There is a field in Gloucestershire where the last UK duel was held and it was a very long time go. I don't think the law was the reason for the demise of 'the duel', I also wonder if it loomed larger in literature than in life.
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'.
Sorry If I misunderstand, but wasn't this form of dueling with real pistols where the loser most often (almost always?) died? Or did they have non-lethal duels?
Old smooth-bore dueling pistols aren't terribly accurate, and a kill shot was unlikely. However, wounds and infection were more likely to kill you than they would be today. More accurate pistols may be one of the reasons the duel died out.
In many ways the Church was the old institution of moral power- an attack on reputation could be mitigated through confession and repentance, with the confessor acting as a judge would for the State.
Of course once the Church had its own reputation crisis it started to crumble from the top, and nothing has really taken its place.
I'm French and I prefer very much 'liberté, égalité, fraternité' as a moral standard than British's queen/king who are definitively not equal with their subjects.
As noted some countries have an appointed president (not for life) without much power that takes a similar symbolic (head of state) role to a monarch/Governor general in a constitutional monarchy (democracy).
Saying the role of the German president is symbolic is a bit like saying the role of flight attendants is to sell food and drinks. He has important powers, but only in case of a crisis that would otherwise result in a dysfunctional government.
>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.
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.
There's a popular growth hacking and viral marketing book that talks about how to leverage outrage mobs to create publicity for your releases. The tactic described seems to be used regularly on many social media platforms, but the author went the extra mile and helped organize physical protests against the product he was tasked with marketing.
No dispute: sometimes the system works. Shaming is a normal component of human social dynamics. The risk is when shame is disproportionate, and never-ending; and this risk is intertwined with the moral hazards of social status incentives for those participating in shame mobs.
>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).
Where does libel fit into your theory? Libel being saying unflattering untruths, which I guess is more akin to violence, whereas you are talking about exaggerating or taking to the extreme the saying of unflattering truths or maybe ambiguously true statements, things that ride the line of fact and opinion. I think I agree that we haven't decided how to draw the line.
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?
Very good points. The challenge with libel/slander (in the US) is that bears a high burden of proof; I'm allowed to say "OJ Simpson is a murderer", so long as I believe it to be true, and/or I'm not doing so with malicious intent, both of which are very difficult to disprove. So while The State does an interest in reputational assault, it's quite narrowly scoped.
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
What we have right now is not shaming, it's bullying. Boycotting a movie because the director cheated on his wife is no different than beating a classmate because his mother is fat.
No, those are very two different things, and that example actually shows the difference between bullying and shaming well. The director is being shamed for something he did. The kid is being bullied on the other hand, because it is over something out of his control.
I should've also pointed out there is also obviously a huge difference between not going to see a movie someone made and beating someone. Also, it's still out of the kid's control, depending on age (parents supply the food) so it's not a great example.
Depending on circumstances, boycotting a person and running his (or her) career may cause more suffering than beating.
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.
In France there's a famous singer who beat a woman to death, by the same logic this is private business between him, the justice and the woman's family?
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..
"Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do."
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.
What do you think about Popper's paradox? The reason I ask is because even the philosophers behind free speech didn't see it as a blank check for every expression, and agreed that there are situations where a free society benefited from speech being curtailed.
Paradox of tolerance? I think it's built on shaky foundations at best. It assumes that tolerance is the highest value, to which other values (e.g. free speech) can be sacrificed, if necessary. If you value freedom of speech higher, you would not make that sacrifice.
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.
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.
Maybe a tolerant society can exist without censorship. But censorship is no the only way not to tolerate intolerance. If advocating against free speech makes you a pariah, then society does not tolerate intolerance even though it is legal.
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.
I'd argue there is a fundamental difference between tolerating intolerant thought and tolerating violent (or even pseudo-violent) acts. People will always have intolerant thoughts, they may not however, ever take that to violent actions.
Basically all intolerant speech should be allowed, so long as you're not trying to call people to arms to act on that speech - the speech itself probably doesn't matter much.
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.
Free Speech isn't a blank check - there are limits - even in the United States we have well defined limits on speech - most critically we limit speech that is a 'imminent call to lawlessness'. I'd like to broaden the limits on speech some, specifically to cover doxing and incitement of online harassment - its a balancing test between free speech and civility, and I fear we are on the wrong side of this currently.
Saying something unpopular, but non-threat provoking shouldn't give your opponents carte blanche to do whatever they like.
Right, makes sense. You made it sound like any suppression of free speech (i.e. by gov't or mob or whatever) was detrimental to a free society, when there are some forms of speech that should be curtailed (and not based on opinion either).
> Silencing people we don’t like will make it easier for others to silence the people we do.
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.
> 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 somewhat agree, though I would note that determining what constitutes a "legitimate" interpretation is a whole other can of worms.
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.
Without getting explicit, there's plenty of historical evidence behind that statement. Evidence that spawned the idea of freedom of speech in general, and evidence later in history that inspired the Martin Niemöller poem First they came ... It is a common refrain, not just by the "help-I'm-being-censored community", but by those who are well versed in history.
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.
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.