[WSIS CS-Plenary] Balancing Free Speech

[Taran Rampersad]

I'm leaving the whole political issue aside, but from a governance
standpoint it is important to note that there is less of a distinction
between television and radio, internet and newspaper, etc - and though
laws may regulate specifics of each 'Industry', we must understand that
the industries themselves are not necessarily what they were when the
regulations came into effect.

Free Speech, in and of itself, has been previously tainted - Freedom of
the Press has been limited to people with presses. But we are now in a
period - at the beginning of a period - where Freedom is more an
individual right than a regulated industry. There's nothing to stop me
from broadcasting a video show from the comfort of my desk (other than,
perhaps, access of technology and bandwidth) - and in what way is
someone typing a URL in to watch a video different than flipping the
channel of a remote control? What's the difference between audio bytes
flying across the internet and radio?

The true difference we're seeing, I think, is not that Indymedia had
it's servers snagged (and returned). It's that it could happen to *you*,
to *me*... to any individual. In fact, as it happens, Indymedia is
simply a gathering of individuals facilitated by an organization. So it
is a place of public gathering, of public sharing. And rules/laws that
applied to 'regulated' industries are now being used without thought of
the original spirit of the laws themselves.

As we shift from molar to molecular media, these issues are becoming
increasingly relevant. Unfortunately, as these issues become
increasingly relevant, individual freedom is treated as increasingly
irrelevant because society is changing faster than the laws.

And I think this is where Civil Society is supposed to be playing a role.

When we talk about Free Speech, we mean - really - the Freedom to
discuss. There can be no balance when it comes to Free Speech, it can
either be representative or not. If I disagree with you, I should not
have to suffer injustices that you may perceive as justices. Conversely,
I should not be able to persecute you for expressing an opinion other
than my own. Balance? Where is there balance? It's about representation,
about discussion... everything is open to discussion, everything should
be open to discussion.

The fact that we are used to two sided monologues has jaded us, perhaps.
Some of us think we are broadcasters in our own rights, but is this
true? It is only true if we do not listen and react to how others
perceive what we 'broadcast'.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom."
— Ayn Rand