Enemies of Freedom

Many of us recently read a controversial article about WeChat , where a browser for a cheburnet consisting of a single government host was presented as something wonderful. During the discussion in the comments, the idea of ​​government censorship of all forwarded messages was met with disapproval. The author of the original article is genuinely outraged that the majority used the karma system to stop writing articles about the delights of totalitarian control of the entire country. In response, he was asked to reflect on the principle

No freedom to the enemies of freedom

Which, however, was not understood by everyone in the historical context. Therefore, I would like to give a detailed definition in response to an article criticizing this principle , and leave the community to decide if it is so bad.



Let's start with a brief historical background. The ideas of freedom of speech, assembly, press, entrepreneurship, tax refusal without representation, the right to defend one's life and property, go back to the "new time" (from about the 16th century), to early liberalism. During this period, the old medieval feudal-serf systems collapsed, and a freer system of relations was just emerging and was not obvious. Thinkers like John Locke or Adam Smith expressed something truly new, not previously accepted. Therefore, having proposed the idea of ​​freedom of speech, they did not think too much about such a simple thing, but how to protect freedom of speech later? It seemed too early to think about it.



Private enterprise and free speech have brought prosperity to many countries. It was only then that society first encountered the so-called paradox of tolerance . The supporters of the world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the communists, actively used the right to freedom of speech to advertise their ideas, declaring at the same time that they would take this freedom from all representatives of the "wrong classes" when they came to power. How it ended, everyone knows, with stripes "enemy of the people" and camps for disrespect for Stalin. In neighboring China, almost the same thing is happening now, but with the use of modern digital technology and surveillance, which the Bolsheviks could only dream of.



Let's take a deeper look at this issue. We all hopefully agree that hitting people is bad. But what about a man who beats people on the street? Should we humbly wait for him to kill us? So, naturally, the concept of self-defense is born.

Hitting people is bad, unless we are protecting our lives from physical attack.

This simple thought, more formalized, is called the principle of non-aggression .

By default, we are in a state of peaceful life, and we have no right to physically harm each other. However, when a person appears among us who does not recognize our tacit agreement and is the first to attack, we can apply physical pressure to him. Why? Because the attacker by his actions himself withdrew from our agreement, rejecting the principle of refusal to aggression, remained outside its framework.



Most legal systems integrate this concept to a greater or lesser extent, leaving an exception for self-defense in the criminal code. This means that you, for example, will not go to jail if you shoot the armed robbers who broke into your house. So why shouldn't we apply this same principle to free speech?



When a person declares, “I propose to take away your freedom of speech,” he should not be offended that in return only he will be taken away freedom of speech. This is what the phrase "no freedom to the enemies of freedom" really means.



It is not proposed here to censor an attacker on a person's freedom at the state level. But the owners of forums and blogs, by the right of the owner, can restrict his statements, in accordance with their private rules... If someone is outraged by them, then he is free to publish anywhere else, or even open his own blog (hosting is cheaper than a can of beer).



With all other options, from total moderation to its absence, the owners of Habr wanted to establish a democratic system of karma that any author can use. The tools are in the hands of the community, not a small group of individuals. Therefore, any comparisons with Chinese censorship are not appropriate here. There is nothing shameful to reduce karma to lovers of dictatorship, a tough hand, total control, and other statism. This is positive feedback and a lesson for them to make them feel at home. Let's respect their cultural traditions. Have a great day everyone!



thanksRAAnatoly for a brilliant example:

“No freedom to the enemies of freedom” is an obvious statement.

Supporters of censorship should campaign for censorship on their own: they should not be allowed into the media.

Fighters against capitalism should not have their own business.

Parties promoting a monopoly one-party system should not be allowed to vote.

Etc.



In simple terms, the withdrawal from the table of a sharpie who was caught by the hand with an extra ace out of his sleeve is not discrimination against the sharper. It is contraindicated to continue playing at the table with a sharpie.