Guest post by Rudyard Kipling: “The Old Issue,” 1899.
Note: Kipling wrote this poem, strangely enough, as a justification for Britain’s entry into the Boer War, not as a protest against any aspect of British rule. While we need to understand the historical context of any written work, this one is more satisfying if we take it on its own and apply it to our times, apart from its origin.
“Here is nothing new nor aught unproven,” say the Trumpets,
“Many feet have worn it and the road is old indeed.
“It is the King — the King we schooled aforetime!”
(Trumpets in the marshes — in the eyot at Runnymede!)
“Here is neither haste, nor hate, nor anger,” peal the Trumpets,
“Pardon for his penitence or pity for his fall.
“It is the King!” — inexorable Trumpets —
(Trumpets round the scaffold at the dawning by Whitehall!)
“He hath veiled the Crown and hid the Sceptre,” warn the Trumpets,
“He hath changed the fashion of the lies that cloak his will.
“Hard die the Kings — ah hard — dooms hard!” declare the Trumpets,
Trumpets at the gang-plank where the brawling troop-decks fill!
Ancient and Unteachable, abide—abide the Trumpets!
Once again the Trumpets, for the shuddering ground-swell brings
Clamour over ocean of the harsh, pursuing Trumpets—
Trumpets of the Vanguard that have sworn no truce with Kings!
Lately I’ve been dealing with some people on Bluesky who advocate violence against people whose ideas are sufficiently repugnant. One of them, a supposed “libertarian,” cited Popper’s “paradox of tolerance” at me, then descended into outright trolling when I linked to my article on the topic in response. I immediately blocked him, of course.
Laws restricting which ideas may be freely expressed are bad enough. Direct violence by individuals or mobs won’t have so broad an effect, but the outcomes in individual cases may be worse. Let’s look at the threats allegedly made by John Reardon of Millis, Massachusetts. According to the DoJ release, called a Jewish synagogue and reportedly said: “You do realize that by supporting genocide that means it’s ok for people to commit genocide against you.” “With supporting the killing of innocent little children, that means it’s OK to kill your children.” “End the genocide, or it is time to end Israel and all the Jews.”
(more…)
“Paradox of Tolerance” is a favorite slogan of censorship advocates. Most often they drop the words in a discussion without elaboration to give the impression they’ve said something profound. Some will mention its connection to Karl Popper. Few will cite his words, since they’re actually opposed to censorship.
The words in question are from a footnote in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The footnote is a bit unclear; Popper was adding a passing thought, not a polished commentary. Here are the words:
(more…)
In Newspeak, freedom is slavery. In Trumpspeak, freedom of speech is censorship.
Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to head the FCC, has declared his intent to “smash the censorship cartel” using the agency’s power. According to the Washington Times, “He is threatening the platforms with revocation of their federally granted immunity against content-based lawsuits.” He’s presumably referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the few parts to survive legal challenges. It says that in general operators of websites that allow public posting of commentary can’t be held liable for what third parties post. Without it, website operators would have to keep a quick finger on the “Delete” button to keep potentially defamatory comments from showing up. They’d need to err on the side of caution. Many sites would probably find it easiest to eliminate the comments section.
(more…)
There has been discussion of whether science fiction/fantasy conventions in the US should be considered human rights risks along with countries like China and Uganda. Some people are already panicking. A post I came across on Bluesky said, “I’ve lost all my desire to attend Seattle Worldcon. Fully aware this is a first world sort of problem but wondering if other non Americans are felling the same?” Steve Davidson, the editor of Amazing Stories, has written: “For at least the next four years the United States will not be a suitable country for hosting Worldcon. It will not be a country that is generally reflective of Fannish values. It may very well become a country that is hostile to those values.” He recognizes that there’s no way to revoke the Seattle and Los Angeles Worldcons.
Giving in to worst-case assumptions this soon is a mistake, but it’s never too soon to consider the risks. What dangers might come to US cons in the next few years raise, and who would be at risk?
(more…)
As the election approaches, I’d like to offer an unpopular idea: There’s too much focus on the candidates. If you care about human freedom, it should be obvious that Trump and Harris are both inimical to it (thought Trump is far worse). However, they’re just symptoms. Whether we’re looking at sending the military into every neighborhood to expel people from the country or instituting price controls and handouts to create winners and losers, the underlying premise is the premise that a central authority should decide how things should be. This idea has gained in popularity in spite of all the evidence that it’s harmful. The Republicans have almost completely abandoned the free-market principles that once formed an inconsistent part of their platform. The Democrats have believed in a managed economy and growth in federal power and spending ever since Franklin Roosevelt, and they haven’t changed on fundamentals.
As the election approaches, writers spend many words on the candidates as people. News sites, no longer pretending to give news, jump on any little thing that makes their preferred candidates look good or their opponents look bad. Their goal is proxy power. People on social media do the same, often with even less regard for the facts and less of a reason. Their main line of argument is “I’m smart, anyone who disagrees with me is dumb, and if you’re smart like me you see that, right?”
If you write on current controversies and value human freedom, you can do something different. You can set a better standard. If enough authors and journalists do it, it can make a difference, pushing the national discourse in a better direction. It wouldn’t take much to make it less awful.
(more…)
A year ago today, Hamas conducted an orgy of brutality against innocent civilians. Such things have happened many times, but this case was unusual in attracting the support of a small but significant number of Americans. I don’t normally venture this deep into politics, aside from First Amendment issues relevant to writing, but I have to say something today.
I’m not talking about people who want peace or who object to Israel’s conduct in the war that followed. I’m talking about people who supported the massacre and want Israel wiped off the map. Also, we have to recognize that even groups with despicable goals have the right of free speech. They do not, however, have the right to physically interfere with other people’s legitimate activity.
Yesterday, as reported in the news, “Thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators temporarily blocked traffic on Storrow Drive in Boston on Sunday during an emotional rally on the eve of the first anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel.” Given the timing, any protest should have said something against that slaughter. The report doesn’t mention anything of the kind.
(more…)
Freedom of speech has a cultural dimension as well as a legal one. Legally, it means that the government must not punish people for their expression, except when it violates the rights of others (e.g., clear threats). Cultural respect for free speech is also important. Where it exists, people have room to express their opinions, even when most people disapprove of them. If it goes away, legal protections for free speech are likely to follow.
Cultural freedom of speech doesn’t mean an obligation to grant a platform or to refrain from criticism. The best way to describe it is going after ideas rather than people when possible. Saying that an idea is horrible is one thing. Saying that the person who said it horrible is a stronger charge and can do more damage. This doesn’t mean we should never condemn people for what they say, but it should be reserved for the most serious cases.
(more…)
As fans energetically discuss the aftermath of the Chengdu Worldcon, some are thinking about the risks of future Worldcons in countries with a bad record on free speech and human rights. There are some issues with the UK, which is hosting this year’s convention, but it’s too late to change it. Let’s look ahead to the bid for Kampala in 2028.
There’s never been a Worldcon in Africa, and that helps to make the idea attractive. The bid website talks about Uganda’s literary history:
(more…)