There is a complicated idea we need to discuss. To
understand it, we must begin at the beginning. To this end, imagine you live
alone in an area of the highland where a small wellspring gushes clean water.
You and your family use the water to drink, wash and irrigate the plot of land
you farm to feed the family and to husband the animals you eat as well as those
you use to do the hard work.
Now change your thinking and imagine you're not living alone
with your family around that wellspring. The place is an outpost inhabited by
several families, some of which live upstream, some downstream and some
in-between. Given that the flow of water is not always even, you can well
imagine that once in a while, there will be friction between the families as to
how much water each can use. Another source of friction concerns the obligation
those who live upstream have not to pollute the water that’s going downstream.
To resolve these issues, you all get together, discuss the
situation, and come to an understanding as to how much water each family will
use, and when it will draw it. You'll also come to an understanding as to what
the upstream dwellers will do to insure that regardless of the flow, the
downstream dwellers will always get an adequate amount of water. And you'll
come to an understanding that the upstream folks will be very careful not to
pollute the water that goes downstream.
When this is done, you'll have established the principle
that people have rights, and that they have obligations toward each other.
You'll have an understanding that may be verbal or may be written but will be a
valid contract freely entered into by the majority of those concerned, if not
by all of them. In fact, this is how society organizes itself to insure the
equitable sharing of the available resources and the maintenance of domestic
tranquility.
Depending on the size, sophistication and degree to which
the community has evolved, the early contract will have spawned variations that
might take on the name of codes-of-conduct, rules, laws, bylaws or
constitution. What must be understood is that the more evolved the community,
the more the rights and obligations of a group or individual will be
intertwined with the rights and obligations of another group and other
individuals. This will increase the chances for creating friction, which is why
learned people, such as elders or judges, are called upon to interpret the law
and adjudicate the cases that come before them.
In fact, we are now so advanced, sophisticated and evolved
that we have something new called the internet, an offshoot of which is called
Facebook. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, and he is facing a moral dilemma
that rises to the level of legal perplexity. It is written about in an article
that came under the title: “What Mark Zuckerberg doesn't get,” and the
subtitle: “Facebook is amplifying hate by letting conspiracy theorists sell
their wares.” It was written by Joan Donovan and Brian Friedberg, and was
published on July 20, 2018 in the New York Daily News.
What is wrong with the Donovan and Friedberg presentation is
that the writers see two kinds of speech: free speech and hate speech. When
tracing the flowchart that results from the way they develop their thesis,
you'll find that they advocate a return to the “executive” kind of rules
adopted by some Human Right Commissions, and used to convict defendants because
their speech made the plaintiff feel uneasy. Donovan and Friedberg would put
utterances that do not praise the Jews under the rubric of hate speech, thus
cause people to fear opening their mouth just to say the word Jew. All other
speeches will go under the rubric of free speech, in the Donovan and Friedberg
model.
But the flowchart must not look like that. It should start
with the rubrics: free speech, banned speech and restricted speech. Under free
speech will go the subgroups of hate speech, offensive speech, disgusting
speech, love speech, praiseworthy speech, and so on. Under banned speech will
go the subgroups of incitement to violence, child pornography and the like.
Under restricted speech will go the subgroups of treason, underground material,
civil disobedience and what have you.
The model offered by Donovan and Friedberg would privilege
the Jews at the expense of all others. This will cause everyone else to demand
being moved to the privileged position. Since this is impossible to do,
domestic tranquility will suffer, things will get out of hand and the Jews will
be made to pay the ultimate price as they have since the beginning of time.
The Donovan and Friedberg model is like ordering that only
one kind of people can live upstream where they'll have the right to pollute
the water all they want before it goes downstream.