'When Hate Spreads Faster Than Truth, Should We Fight Fascism With Censorship?'
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
Thinking is important. Before speaking, before acting… and definitely before writing. This week's column took a lot of thinking. More than usual. And at first, I thought that was a problem. Writer's block? But perhaps the very problem is me thinking there's a problem because I don't immediately have something to say.
This week's Media Storm guest thinks for a living. And when I asked AC Grayling about my current predicament, he said: "You've identified a real problem there. The best pushback to it is to try to encourage everybody to start thinking slowly."
The predicament I shared with him was that I believe in free speech, and I really want to live by that. But I'm scared. I write every week about how on the internet, lies spread faster than the truth, and how our professional news media is incentivised to publish divisive clickbait.
Power, Visas, and the Politics of Exclusion: How Borders Are Being Used to Silence Dissent
Borders are now being used not just to prevent the passage of people, but of ideas too, argues Iain Overton
Iain Overton
Last year in the UK, a fake news tweet about the Southport Stabbing triggered racist disorder on our streets; yet rather than leading to introspection about the scapegoating of migrants and Muslims, this week alone we've seen a visibly racist travel ban in the US, a UK PMQs about banning the burka, and two bogus front pages about non-Muslims being convicted for 'blasphemy' in the UK (which we'll get onto).
I'm left wondering, in a world where hate spreads faster than the truth, how can we fight fascism without censorship?
Germany and Austria have anti-fascist censorship laws that make it an imprisonable offence to downplay Nazi crimes. It might seem out of place in modern democracy to outlaw reinterpretations of history, but these laws were introduced through hard-learned lessons.
Nevertheless, they often backfire.
The far-right AfD (some of whose leaders have been convicted under these laws) could have legally been banned last month when German intelligence classified them an 'extremist party'. But the government rapidly backtracked when faced with fury they could be censoring opposition.
A similar backlash occurred when the Holocaust denier David Irving was arrested and imprisoned in Austria for his now-discredited rewritings of Nazi history. Paradoxically, this saw him become something of a free speech hero, later invited to Oxford University to speak on the topic.
Far more effective in discrediting his ideas, was the work of historian Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team, who proved in a famous libel trial that Irving was indeed a Holocaust denier - and that the Holocaust had incontestably occurred.
'How the Media is Cashing in on the Rise of Nigel Farage'
News organisations are failing the country at the moment when responsible independent journalism is most needed, argues Mathilda Mallinson
Mathilda Mallinson
Free speech advocates take the example of Irving v. Lisptadt as proof that it is better to let bad ideas be aired and defeated, than to force them to simmer in the shadows. But our media does not operate like a courtroom.
In a courtroom, two sides present their views, in a civil manner, under oath, and with the opportunity to cross-examine.
By contrast, in our media, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes," as Mark Twain famously observed.
X owner Elon Musk removed fact-checking on the grounds it was equivalent to censorship (he also removed AC Grayling, which tells you all you need to know about today's 'free' marketplace of ideas).
Meanwhile, professional news editors often opt for clickbait over accuracy.
Which takes me back to that Da...
For digital and print editions, packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, features, and columns….
SUBSCRIBE
Thinking is important. Before speaking, before acting… and definitely before writing. This week's column took a lot of thinking. More than usual. And at first, I thought that was a problem. Writer's block? But perhaps the very problem is me thinking there's a problem because I don't immediately have something to say.
This week's Media Storm guest thinks for a living. And when I asked AC Grayling about my current predicament, he said: "You've identified a real problem there. The best pushback to it is to try to encourage everybody to start thinking slowly."
The predicament I shared with him was that I believe in free speech, and I really want to live by that. But I'm scared. I write every week about how on the internet, lies spread faster than the truth, and how our professional news media is incentivised to publish divisive clickbait.
Power, Visas, and the Politics of Exclusion: How Borders Are Being Used to Silence Dissent
Borders are now being used not just to prevent the passage of people, but of ideas too, argues Iain Overton
Iain Overton
Last year in the UK, a fake news tweet about the Southport Stabbing triggered racist disorder on our streets; yet rather than leading to introspection about the scapegoating of migrants and Muslims, this week alone we've seen a visibly racist travel ban in the US, a UK PMQs about banning the burka, and two bogus front pages about non-Muslims being convicted for 'blasphemy' in the UK (which we'll get onto).
I'm left wondering, in a world where hate spreads faster than the truth, how can we fight fascism without censorship?
Germany and Austria have anti-fascist censorship laws that make it an imprisonable offence to downplay Nazi crimes. It might seem out of place in modern democracy to outlaw reinterpretations of history, but these laws were introduced through hard-learned lessons.
Nevertheless, they often backfire.
The far-right AfD (some of whose leaders have been convicted under these laws) could have legally been banned last month when German intelligence classified them an 'extremist party'. But the government rapidly backtracked when faced with fury they could be censoring opposition.
A similar backlash occurred when the Holocaust denier David Irving was arrested and imprisoned in Austria for his now-discredited rewritings of Nazi history. Paradoxically, this saw him become something of a free speech hero, later invited to Oxford University to speak on the topic.
Far more effective in discrediting his ideas, was the work of historian Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team, who proved in a famous libel trial that Irving was indeed a Holocaust denier - and that the Holocaust had incontestably occurred.
'How the Media is Cashing in on the Rise of Nigel Farage'
News organisations are failing the country at the moment when responsible independent journalism is most needed, argues Mathilda Mallinson
Mathilda Mallinson
Free speech advocates take the example of Irving v. Lisptadt as proof that it is better to let bad ideas be aired and defeated, than to force them to simmer in the shadows. But our media does not operate like a courtroom.
In a courtroom, two sides present their views, in a civil manner, under oath, and with the opportunity to cross-examine.
By contrast, in our media, "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes," as Mark Twain famously observed.
X owner Elon Musk removed fact-checking on the grounds it was equivalent to censorship (he also removed AC Grayling, which tells you all you need to know about today's 'free' marketplace of ideas).
Meanwhile, professional news editors often opt for clickbait over accuracy.
Which takes me back to that Da...
Activity