The struggle over the freedom of the press and expression is a constant battle between our desire to wield our rapier wit or verbal broadsword against the absurdity and corruption of the world around us and our thin-skinned desire to keep anyone else from speaking against ourselves and our interests. As someone whose tongue is razor-sharp and whose skin is sometimes a bit thin, I have pondered both sides of this problem in some depth. How do we balance our need for self-preservation and the desire for expression that is, for some of us, compulsive? This is a difficult problem.
Since before my teenage years I have been a public writer whose writings were often critical of authorities who I judged to be incompetent and corrupt. More than once my writings have led me to face death deaths, and the threats of lawsuits, and the concern that my compulsion to speak out about what I think, feel, and see will send me to jail or do an early grave. This is not an idle concern–Thailand has a well-deserved reputation for hostility to free expression, and my compulsive interest in politics is very dangerous. Had I lived in earlier times it would have been nearly certainly fatal–and it may be yet.
I say this because I am aware, and deeply concerned, over my own freedom and safety given the problem of censorship. I do not consider myself a particularly rebellious or revolutionary person by nature. I tend to be skeptical and cynical of revolutionary ideals, have little interest in holding power over others, and tend to believe that there are core evils in humanity that exist regardless of regimes and political worldviews. In light of these evils I tend to be a conservative person by inclination who desires stability as well as organic change that does not move too quickly or too severely that it is impossible for the social systems as a whole to remain viable. In short, I am not particularly a threat to any social system, for though I have rather ambitious goals I am a pokey turtle when it comes to implementation. And as a very obscure private person, I am surprised when my words attract a large audience or prove decisive in a struggle, given my lack of formal power and the lack of profit my interest in writing has provided for me thus far in life.
As a blogger I solve my dilemma in a very straightforward way. My blog represents my free expression (and also my very sincere worries about the external forces, like an unfriendly legal climate, that hinder my freedom). If someone attempts to post messages I consider inflammatory or hostile to me or my views and my commitments, I delete or edit them. I do not object to people writing blog entries that are hostile to me (there was once a blog entirely devoted to being hostile about me, which I found somewhat amusing), as that is their right. Nonetheless, I choose not to look out for what offends me, and expect that if others are offended by free expression, within moral limitations, that the solution is to turn your own eyes elsewhere rather than to lash out at those with legitimate concerns and a fierce way of describing then.
Censorship is dangerous for a lot of reasons. While I am a pretty vigilant censor on a small scale, as this blog is my realm and I enforce my own worldview on it, but have no desire to limit the freedom of others to write their own blogs expressing whatever worldview they have, I am not a censor on the large scale at all. Censorship is dangerous because those thoughts that cannot be expressed turn inward and threaten one’s loyalty to a regime. They force people to become hypocrites, acting in public what they abhor in private. By making anyone who dislikes any aspect of a regime or authority to be disloyal and treacherous, it forces everyone to engage in some kind of treacherous activity merely to keep them from betraying their own true thoughts and feelings and perspectives.
It is my belief that so long as one’s self-expression is moral and principled, that self-expression is helpful for knowing where others genuinely stand and for others to know where you stand also. This requires some level of mutual respect and self-restraint, so obviously what I mean by free expression is free according to self-government and not licentious abuse. And this is where the problem tends to begin. If we lack self-discipline or respect, we will either willfully and flagrantly offend others or take offense far too easily at others, and that means that free communication is shut off. Censorship is merely the choice of silence–whether self-silence to avoid offending those who are too defensive and insecure or silence enforced by other people because they cannot bear for certain subjects, even vitally important ones, to be discussed. In the absence of mutual respect the only alternative to silence is violence, hostile language and action.
We live in a world where anyone with a keyboard or a smart phone can post blogs about whatever they feel like. There is also, unsurprisingly, a growing desire of repressive and authoritarian governments (under whatever guise they exist) to prevent others from speaking freely because they are offended about speech that attacks sacred cows in a country, religious beliefs or political opinions about kings or generals or ayatollahs or comrades or presidents. It is far wiser to allow for a society and its leadership to let off some sort of steam and give leaders warning when actions are unpopular or when corruption has reached critical levels than to attempt to shut off dissent altogether, because righteous anger will not be denied, it will only be moved underground, where it cannot be seen until it is too late for reform and when revolution becomes the only option.
A regime that is secure in its legitimacy welcomes critical press, because it allows them to understand what other people are critical of. By providing open and honest rebuttals of official propaganda and alternative perspectives, leaders (or, more usually, their underlings), can be advised as to how government action or inaction is viewed by articulate and politically active members of their society, and can respond to it thoughtfully through public and private channels. This allows people to preserve their mental and emotional health by being able to speak honestly and openly (since some of us are deeply driven to self-expression), and it also preserves the health of families, organizations, and societies by allowing others to know what problems and misunderstandings exist and need to be dealt with. When we can no longer talk respectfully across divides, we are no longer one people, and we are at war, whether it is to be solved in lawsuits or shouting matches or physical combat. When rational arguments fail, it only remains to fight.
And censorship is an act of war. Let us be blunt, some of us may censor ourselves because we do not desire to pay the price of lost relationships with overly sensitive people, or time spent rotting in a dungeon for offending someone in power whom we have no personal hostility for. This sort of self-censorship, which really bothers me, is nothing more than an exercise in self-preservation (itself merely that delicate balance between prudence and honesty). Some of us, myself included, lack strong instincts for self-preservation or any great skill at dissembling or guile [1]. At times this can be very dangerous.
We must therefore see that censorship is a problem, even if it is a complicated one. Heavy-handed and corrupt censorship is often the response of authorities to expression that lacks self-discipline as well as legitimate communication that hits at insecurities or weak spots. The proliferation of the blogosphere (of which Edge Induced Cohesion is merely one example) is part of a lengthy battle over self-expression between those who wish to express what is loathsome and immoral and those who cannot bear for truths to be expressed openly, except in mild and cringing, almost apologetic fashion. I only wish I had enough wisdom to speak honestly and sincerely without causing unnecessary offense and enough fortune to live in a time and place where it was possible for me to speak freely and openly without endangering my own safety and well-being. Unfortunately, neither appears to be the case.
Edge Induced Cohesion 