Dear D. Horse,
Thanks for such a well-stated and quick reply!
(Web surfers with short attention spans, please go to straight to
"Summary" below.)> : I think McSpotlight should take a clear stand against
> violence.
> I think that the use of violence is very difficult to make
> empirical and absolute statements on.
Agreed. By "absolute minimum" below, I mean that it is better to
err on the side of too little violence-in-self-defence than too
much. (And this applies to the state as well: my guess is that
putting the Gandalf 3 in prison is probably too much violence
by the state. You'll see below I modify my final statement which
distracted from my main point, which was about actions that
McSpotlight should take rather than what actions the judge and police
should take.)
> : ** (physical) violence should only be used in the absolute
> minimum **
> : ** level necessary for (effective) self-defence. **
State violence
--------------
> You say this, but have you considered the way in which either
...
> aggression. You might see it as a matter of opinion as to
> whether violence is effective or not, but the states of the
> world have managed to hold power by using it for thousands of
> years.
I'm well aware of state violence: and you state the case well.
But, I would say that the two communications revolutions of the
last 750 years (printing press with moveable type,
Koryo dynasty, Korea, mid-13th C AD,
e.g., http://korea.emb.washington.dc.us/kois/Heritage/2.html,
imitated 200 years later by Gutenberg mid-15th C AD - thanks
Marco Polo?;
tel/fax/Web, 20th C AD)
have made it much easier for non-violent opposition to state
violence to be effective.
GA case
-------
> The two particularly exceptional instances you chose to refer to
> in the GA newspaper are out of context, individual situations
...
> to violence, and the GA article reports on the act out of
> context, you do not know the history of the situation, so
> whether you yourself believe the act is extreme (I must admit,
> it sounds so to me) is subjective, we cannot judge a persons
> actions without knowing the full facts.
I think we're in agreement here.
Free speech except if encouraging violence
------------------------------------------
> The point is though that GA was only reporting the action, it
I'd like to see the prosecutor's arguments, (e.g., editorials
encouraging the violence) to see if this is all the GA really did.
I don't know the full facts.
> And during the Gulf war, news readers certainly reported acts of
> extreme violence with a zeal that betrayed their obvious support
> for the droppers of bombs which killed both conscripted soldiers
> and civilians.
Sure, and I think careful analysis on the Web (in the style of
Chomsky and his collaborators) showing examples of where
TV newsreaders, or newspapers, or politicians make statements
which incite violence would be very useful in opposing such
encouragement of violence.
> : violence. Reporting has an emotional content as well as a
> formal
> : content.
> How??? this is reporting of fact, no emotive words have been
> used at all! it might not appeal to your taste, but it happened
Agreed that no obviously emotive words were used in what was quoted by
McSpotlight as the GA#38 extract. I was thinking of the
parts of the GA#38 issue which were not quoted (and which will hopefully appear on McSpotlight soon).
Summary
-------
> : Whether or not the Gandalf 3 should be in prison for what they
> : wrote, I'd have to see much more detail on the Web.
Actually I prefer to retract this statement, it distracts from
my main point that I think McSpotlight should put a clear caveat on
its support of free speech with respect to the question of
speech which encourages violence. A clear caveat would not stop
McSpotlight supporting the Gandalf 3. It would merely clarify
McSpotlight's position. (If McSpotlight is indeed against
violence except for an absolute minimum needed in self-defence.)
It might also gain a lot more support from journalists' organisations
and the general public. (This is not a sufficient argument, just
a strategic observation.)
I would also like to see McSpotlight justify the statement on
http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/gandalf/index.html
" The 3 convicted defendants had merely been performing
the public service of publishing news of a wide range of
current direct actions (in the UK and in other countries) by
progressive and alternative activists. The court had found
this to be 'incitement'. "
with, e.g., a copy of the complete contents of the GA issues which
allegedly encouraged violence (#38 and others?),
and, say, court transcripts (sure, it takes time, but would help
the cause), including something like the words "suppressed
by Public Interest Immunity order" where necessary to show
that the prosecution cannot justify their case (if in fact
they cannot).
Hope this helps,
Boud.
None.
