Part of my point here is that the framework we use to discuss free speech is incomplete. By a strict legal definition, the Charlie Hebdo shootings were a violation of no one's free speech, as there were no state actors involved. (The round-up of insufficiently respectful Arabs that followed was certainly a suppression of free speech under the traditional definition.) But try saying that anywhere public and you'll have your head bitten off.
Likewise, GamerGate is not an issue of free speech. Legally. But both the CH shootings and GG have a strong effect on what can and cannot be publicly said.
My concern is not about legal freedom of expression—which is a fiction to begin with, as it only applies to a certain segment of society—but the culture of critique, which tends to be formed in far less dramatic ways. No one's busting down Moore's or Rogen's door for their comments. No one needs to. And the reason for this is not the gub'mint but a culture where criticism is heavily frowned upon. Hard repression is much easier to oppose than soft repression; the latter first needs to be defined, which is one of the things I'm teasing out in my own head here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-01-22 12:48 pm (UTC)Likewise, GamerGate is not an issue of free speech. Legally. But both the CH shootings and GG have a strong effect on what can and cannot be publicly said.
My concern is not about legal freedom of expression—which is a fiction to begin with, as it only applies to a certain segment of society—but the culture of critique, which tends to be formed in far less dramatic ways. No one's busting down Moore's or Rogen's door for their comments. No one needs to. And the reason for this is not the gub'mint but a culture where criticism is heavily frowned upon. Hard repression is much easier to oppose than soft repression; the latter first needs to be defined, which is one of the things I'm teasing out in my own head here.