Re: [Marxism] Re ;Cuban "journalists" get US money

[brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Haines Brown)]

> I see no point in limiting the peoples access to the internet or any
> other info.I do understand in Cuba there are tech issues and cost
> issue that limit the penetration of the net,and the Cuban peoples
> access .These issues mandate a policy of rationalization in how
> scares resources are best allocated,and used.These are not the areas
> that cause concern,its the censorship,the limititation or blocks on
> certain info that causes concern.

> Education is the answer,not censorship.Censorship also adds an
> element of doubt that can be exploited and exaggerated by those
> people and forces dedicated to the restoration of capitalism.

> Censorship is censorship pure and simple.Someone is still deciding
> what other can see or know,how can this be justified.

I don't sharply disagree, but would only like to suggest that the
issue is rather more complicated. I happen to live in a very liberal
atmosphere in which freedom of expression is highly valued, and so
naturally I am chilled by examples of its repression. Nevertheless,
I must strive to see the issue in less parochial terms.

I receive hundreds of e-mails a every day, and because my spam filter
set to a low value, many instances get through to me. It is an
annoying waste of my time, and if I could install a magic filter that
would censor every piece of spam coming my way, I wouldn't hesitate a
minute. If my ISP would do it for me, that would even be better. I
suspect many people think as I do here.

Let me put this example in more general terms. First, it represents a
situation in which communications are fairly open. In a capitalist system,
there are people who quickly take advantage of it to send me harmful
messages. What is "harmful"? Messages that interfere with efficient
communication or run counter to my deeper values. I have no hesitation
blocking such messages through my own action, and even imposed by my
ISP, who shares my values to the extent that spam also is costly to it
and it annoys its customers.

Would I go so far as to accept my government's passing legislation
that ideally would end spam? Here I hesitate, for I don't trust my
government to act in my interest. While it might perhaps agree with me
that spam is costly and annoying, it holds other values that are
contrary to my own, and it does not act openly and honestly. Note that
to address the issue of censorship adequately, I can't get anywhere by
remaining at the level of abstract principle, but must turn to
concrete situations.

Under socialism, as in the case of Cuba, the government is supposed to
act in the interests of the people and to lead. So in principle, its
responsibility would be to block communications that are socially
harmful. Does it actually act this way? Well, that depends on the
specifics of the situation, which are here not mentioned. There are
certainly harmful communications which might wound people's
sensibilities, contribute to social disorder, or work contrary to the
socialist principles that Cuba holds dear. Can a society as a whole
simply ignore such facts?

If not, the issue is whether its censorship is done responsibly and
really addresses the public wellbeing or whether its censorship is
arbitrary and contrary to the public interest. The value of free
speech is a liberal ideal that is never actually implemented fully in
practice. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for your
amusement. There are always some limitations imposed from without, and
so the question is the extent of those limitations, who defines them,
and whether they do reflect the public interest or values.

Is this paternalistic? The term implies the person being censored is
merely a child, without being able to judge for itself. Father knows
best. But we are not really speaking of a father-child relationship
here, and so the term is loaded. As mature and informed adults, we
participate in many social situations in which certain viewpoints are
felt harmful and in need of censure. We accept this because we
identify with these social communities and share its basic values. If
you belong to an organization following Roberts Rules of Order, you
accept those limitations on your behavior because you know it is for
the good of everyone in the organization. A socialist society strives
to represent a community of shared interest, and so has some
responsibility to define the rules of the game. And in our world, that
certainly includes rules affecting the content of communication.

In our open world, education will not suffice. If anything, it will
just develop people to be more offended by the garbage coming in over
the net. It doesn't stop the annoyance, and it does not prevent
communications from feeding our baser instincts or the social
pathologies that probably exist in any society. Besides, education is
also "paternalistic" in that it generally is authoritative wisdom that
is being passed along to the student. A teacher can't really separate
the ability to think effectively from the content of what is being
thought about.

Should that imply a license for a socialist government to impose rules
that broadly discourage meaningful communication and reflect just the
values of the few who happen to be in a position of leadership? Of
course not. This extreme is no better than its opposite, a
laissez-faire embrace of anything whatsoever, regardless of its
cultural value. The issue is not whether there be censorship, but how
it is implemented and its specific content.

--

       Haines Brown
         KB1GRM
         ET1(SS) U.S.S. Irex 482

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism