| A practical and moral defence of mathNEWS |
[Jun. 25th, 2010|04:24 pm] |
If you're interested in free speech, or at least UW campus politics, you should read this post.
First, the backstory: a fortnight ago, mathNEWS called current Imprint president E Aboyeji an "idiot" for comments he had made on Twitter. E threatened to sue for defamation, and mathNEWS promptly retracted the statement. You can read a thorough account of the situation on E's own blog, here.
I wrote an article for today's mathNEWS defending their right to call someone an "idiot", especially in this situation. That article is based on legal arguments — since they were attacked legally, I felt it most right to defend them on those grounds in that publication. But I have a lot more to say on the subject. I hold that not only was E Aboyeji wrong legally, but his actions were also wrong practically and morally.
I'll present those arguments here.
The practical defence of mathNEWSAnyone with an internet connection should know what the Streisand effect is. Basically, an attempt to censor something (especially on the internet) will just draw attention to that something, and lead it to become more widespread.
I can safely say that's what happened in this case. If E had just let it go nobody except him would care (or even remember) that mathNEWS had called him an idiot. Since his surname wasn't used, even Google was unlikely to turn it up. But now instead, he has a blog post about it, I have this blog post about it, and it's being discussed on random places on the internet. Hell, I found out about this case not from mathNEWS, not from anyone at Imprint, but from a random girl in my philosophy class. Threat of litigation don't work for suppressing memes. It almost never does.
E claimed he threatened to sue because his family's wealth is dependant on their reputation, and being called an idiot (even in mathNEWS!) harms his reputation. But I cannot see how that reasonably follows. It's not as if they accused him of a crime. It's not even as if they accused him of being of poor character or financially insolvent (not crimes, but still valid grounds for libel suits in Canada — such cases have been won.) He was called an idiot — an unflattering, but largely subjective term.
Being called names seldom helps one's reputation, but being libel-suit happy is even worse. A surefire way to earn a poor reputation is abusing the legal system, filing legal claim after legal claim to silence honest critics. See: Jack Thompson, Uri Gellar, and Church of Scientology.
While it's his reputation and he's free to soil it if he wants, I'm concerned that the particular approach he chose will erode my free speech rights. What E should have done is solved the problem with more speech. He could have questioned mathNEWS credibility in calling him an idiot. If mathNEWS had decided to sue E, E could have used a "qualified privledge" defence. (Canadian libel law, apparently, gives greater latitude to speech made in defence of attacks to your reputation.)
While I'm writing on practicalities, one final note: some have commented that E should have talked to the authors or mathNEWS before calling his lawyers. E said he used legal tactics first and foremost because "if there is anything I hate, it is wasting my time" and lawyering up would get quick results. Well, that much was true. And I can appreciate not wanting to waste time, but you know what would have taken even less time? Doing nothing. And even failing that, surely he spent more time writing his long blog post and responding to the comments than he would have spent just talking to Joe Collins. The "wasting time" argument reeks of post facto justification.
So in short, given that mathNEWS said something (mildly) unflattering about E that he didn't want repeated and didn't want to waste his time on, threatening to sue them was not a practical course of action.
The moral defence of mathNEWSLawyers are like nuclear weapons. Sure, they end conflicts. But their use is very messy, with long-lasting effects. More importantly, their uneven distribution creates a fundamental imbalance of power. A civilized body would only use them as a last resort.
In general, I find SLAPP actions repugnant no matter who conducts them. But this case is even worse, because this case involved E Aboyeji.
When I first learned what happened, I was both surprised and angry. Surprised, because E is generally an intelligent and level-headed guy, and this is the most rash and un-thought-through thing I've ever known him to do. And I was angry — so angry I had trouble sleeping — because E is not exactly known for excess of kindness in his own writing. As editor-in-chief, I defended him against other Imprint full-time staff who thought he went to far. I defended him against the Feds exec, who were often less than thrilled with what he had to say. I have expended a lot of effort to defend his, in particular his right to free speech, and in fact I will continue to do so. But I find something repugnant in someone attacking a right one often wields himself.
E wrote in one of the comments to his blog post, "Every week, I criticise the administration using very strong (but not objectionable) language in my columns and we have not had the slightest issue for it."
It's true the UW administration never tried to sue Imprint while I was at the helm, but that's because the administration knows better. Every practical argument I used against E suing mathNEWS applies to UW suing Imprint. Even more so, since I'm a freedom-loving, stubborn, loudmouthed bastard. I would not have printed a retraction — I would have gone to court. (And since the president at the time, Sherif Soliman, is as stubborn and freedom-loving as I am, I'm sure I would have had his support.) I would have also kindly let all the other student newspapers and local media know that UW is suing us. In short, suing Imprint would have been worse for UW's reputation than anything E says. That's why UW hasn't sued Imprint, not because there's some legal difference between what E says about UW, and what mathNEWS said about E.
Now I do have to say that, using the strictest definition, E is not actually being a hypocrite. I have access to all of E's columns published while I was editor-in-chief, and I've checked them. He's never called anyone an idiot, nor has he used similar ad-hominum language. But that doesn't mean he hasn't said potentially defamatory things. Take this statement from this column of his:"So when I cast that difficult vote in November, I'll hope that my “yes” is for a student government that is protecting my interests-but I'll know who should be doing the celebrating that fall afternoon. It'll be President Johnston and his crew. I can hear them already: 'Those lousy kids just freed up another 50 million.'" Also, this column of his is full of gems. Here's one I've selected:"One should shake their head in pity at the “screwing” the Faculty of Arts consistently experiences. The faculty is quick to claim strength in numbers (primarily because people fail into it) but one can only wonder about its strength in substance." (Emphasis mine).
I could easily see, say, the UW Faculty of Arts suing Imprint because we implied arts students are failures, and that hurts their reputation, which in turn hurts their recruitment efforts. Would threatening to sue Imprint both be frivolous and an overreaction? Yes. That's my point.
To get back to my moral argument, the difference between "objectionable" and "not objectionable language" language E Aboyeji outlined does exist, but it's only relevant inside his head. There's little if any distinction pertaining to libel law, and there's no real moral difference between mathNEWS's and E's use of free speech. It's like if I say I'll never use profanity in my writing, and get upset if someone else does. My thinking is internally consistent, but I have no right to hold others by my own self-defined standard.
In short, not only was E's threat of litigation impractical, but it was also wrong.
End notesAgain, if you're curious about the particulars of what actually happened, I encourage you to read E's blog post. While written from his perspective, it is rich in facts.
I do have to make a couple of notes that don't really fit in anywhere else, though. He says that this "was a private matter", but I disagree. Any threats of libel litigation against publications, by merit of their possible effects on speech, are public matters. Also, while I do commend E for being so open with his side of the story, I wish he would have done so even without the threat of The Chevron covering the issue. (I am also wary of "anonymous" publications, but in this case The Chevron introduced openness where there would otherwise be none. So, it fulfilled the role of "newspaper".)
I don't want you to come away from this long post believing that I maintain there's no place for libel suits. That's also not true. Canada offers zero free-speech protection for statements made with malicious intent (i.e., solely to defame someone), or for statements which are defamatory due to negligence (e.g. poorly-researched, sloppy journalism.) I think that's fair. However, neither are the case here.
I still have more to say. But this post is long enough as it is. Maybe I'll write on this subject again, maybe not.
You know, I wanted to just ignore Imprint, mathNEWS, and all of UW politics this term. I've been at UW for two generations of undergrads — I really, really want to start concerning myself with matters unrelated to campus and more related to the "real world". But I feel compelled to defend free speech wherever I am, and for the moment, I am still here.
The reality surrounding free speech is similar to the law surrounding trademarks: it needs to be defended constantly, even at the slightest encroachment. Otherwise, it'll be lost.
Also, I am not a lawyer. Is that disclaimer mandatory? I dunno. I am not a lawyer, after all. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
valacosa's journal
