Here in Germany we had no freedom of speech during Nazism 1933-1945 and during Soviet Communism 1961-1989 in the East. If you dared to criticize the wrong persons or parties at that time officers from the secret state police would came at night, do some enhanced interrogation and put you in a concentration camp. In Nazi Germany that was the Gestapo in combination with the Stormtroopers from the SS, in the GDR during Communism where Putin was a KGB officer the Stasi (state security) would come and imprison you. Typical for both systems, communism and Nazism, was ubiquitous propaganda for the single-party state and its infallible leaders.Today the constitution guarantees free speech unless you insult someone. Slander is an indictable offense here too. Propaganda has not completely vanished, just diversified as various forms of PR, marketing and advertising in my opinion. Opinions can turn into propaganda if they become one-sided praise for the state and supreme leader. I think that is what the NY Times is trying to avoid by presenting multiple opinions.There are of course extreme opinions that lead to demagoguery and fascism, like the opinion that protesters damage law and order although they are doing the opposite (chapter 7 in "How fascism works" from Jason Stanley). That could be the trap in which the NY Times has stumbled here.-J. -------- Original message --------From: Gary Schiltz <[email protected]> Date: 6/5/20 18:20 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Freedom of opinion or fascist trap Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. I spent 50 of my 61 years in the USA, where it is almost a national religion. It is certainly baked into our psyche. It is nonetheless tempered by a variety of laws, most of which appeal to Americans' common sense (whether or not we do indeed have much common sense is debatable, though my biased view is that we do). The quintessential example given as a limit to freedom of speech is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, causing people to stampede with resultant injury or death. US law also penalizes libel (written damage to someone's reputation through false statements) and slander (verbal version of libel). We also have laws against false advertising.The interesting thing to me is in the differences by country in the interpretation/enforcement of these laws and the attitudes of the people toward freedom of speech (I suppose laws feedback to attitudes and vice versa). Being nearly a national religion, we Americans feel we have the right to say basically whatever we want about anything (I suppose we feel speech is simply aural/written expression of our opinions, which we love to express, loudly). Paradoxically, we are pretty thin-skinned, and easily take offense when we are on the receiving end of such tirades. Our attitudes towards governance in general (mostly against) is also baked into our psyche.In Ecuador, slander and libel are taken much more seriously than in the USA, both in the culture and the laws. Consequently, people are much more reticent about complaining publicly about something. Social media is changing this a lot, making it much more common to call politicians corrupt (maybe the consequence of having their rights to political dissent squashed for a decade under Rafael Correa, now ex-president and indicted criminal on the run). But libel (or whatever it is called when it applies to writing about a business) is still quite easily prosecuted. I've heard of many cases where someone is charged and convicted for simply writing publicly (i.e. on social media) about a bad experience they had with a business.What insights do other folks on the list from different countries besides the USA and Ecuador have?On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote:oh sorry, I overlooked your post. When does an opinion become propaganda? I think this happens when you repeat one-sided opinions. In this sense the NY Times tried to do the right thing, but failed nevertheless :-/-J.-------- Original message --------From: uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> Date: 6/5/20 16:15 (GMT+01:00) To: FriAM <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Freedom of opinion or fascist trap New York Times says senator Tom Cotton's op-ed did not meet editorial standards https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/05/new-york-times-says-tom-cotton-opinion-piece-did-not-meet-editorial-standardsAs I tried to say in my previous post: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/credibility-tp7596748.htmlThe NYT has lost its Op-Ed credibility. For me, Bret Stephens was the trigger. I'd already been miffed that I couldn't simply suspend my subscription for a little while. You have to call them on the phone, which is irritating for someone who doesn't like talking on the phone. So, hiring Stephens was the 2nd justification. And I've considered re-subscribing since their GitHub covid19 data came online. But then the Cotton Op-Ed changed my mind. With their backtracking and now admitting the Cotton Op-Ed was a mistake, I'm more likely to resub before the elections. Their election tools are great.But their credibility has taken a huge hit, however you cut it.On 6/5/20 4:32 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:> The NY Times op ed from Tom Cotton named "Send in the troops" has caused a bit of a controversy, even inside the NY Times > https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html> > The NY Times is trying to represent the whole spectrum of politically significant opinions. If they only print opinions that fit to one worldview they are making propaganda. If they publish all kinds of opinions, they may support fascism, authoritarianism or racism.> > How do you solve this dilemma? Did they fall into a trap now because they have supported the rise of fascism by printing this opinion, as Jason Stanley, the author of "How fascism works" says?-- ☣ uǝlƃ- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listservZoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comarchives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
