The pull of censorship

“Lithuania, or rather, some politicians, find it difficult to resist the pull of censorship. Although freedom of speech and its importance for the development and well-being of society are emphasized, new calls are constantly being made to grant various institutions the right to issue mandatory orders to remove harmful information from social networks and other platforms.

 

Supporters of enhanced censorship present a dystopian view of the damage that enemies of the state can do to an unprepared and naive society. For example, conservative Vytautas Juozapaitis explains that “information attacks, lies, incitement to hatred, terrorist propaganda and various manipulations have become a daily threat to our citizens and the state.”

 

Although daily threats are constantly mentioned, almost never specifying how they are specifically implemented, how they are connected to the enemy’s deliberate propaganda and intentions. If the danger were real, if the disinformation and lies spread on social networks and elsewhere encouraged the naive or enemies of the state to take measures to harm society and the state, then the media and social media would constantly report on successful attacks or the ability of state institutions to catch and neutralize ill-wishers. But there is no such information, so we can come to a relative conclusion that the threats mentioned by Juozapaitis do not exist or there are very few of them. They are probably a figment of his imagination, and not an accurate definition and assessment of the situation.

 

Usually, law enforcement agencies are not modest. When they catch the “bad guys”, they rush to inform the public about it. One only needs to remember how much publicity was given to the detention of A. Paleckis, allegedly for spying for Russia. It is also necessary to remember that he was kept in isolation, that is, in solitary confinement, for about 528 days.

 

The fact that there is no reporting on the damage caused by information attacks, lies, incitement to hatred, terrorist propaganda, allows us to conclude that there is none, or very little of it. In each case, there is no basis for granting various institutions the right to issue mandatory orders to remove harmful information from social networks and other platforms, because there is so little of it.

 

And what is harmful information? I do not believe that Russia poses a threat to Lithuania. But some arms enthusiasts who are afraid of threats from Russia may consider my remarks harmful, because they imply that defense spending should be reduced and more funds should be allocated to combating social inequality and exclusion.

 

It is proposed to grant the powers of censorship to the Inspector of Journalist Ethics and the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission. But why should we assume that they are suitable for this task. What is their knowledge and what is their readiness to take on such duties?

 

In European countries, there is still a debate about the definition of freedom of speech, specialists are consulted, and court decisions on this issue are monitored. Neither courts nor philosophers have a unified opinion. And they will not have one, among other things, because the absolutists of freedom of speech are convinced that all restrictions are unjustified, and many countries, like Lithuania, indicate in their constitutions that freedom of expression can be restricted by law if it is necessary to protect human health, honor and dignity, and morality. Neither one nor the other will retreat, will not abandon their provisions.

 

I do not understand how restrictions on freedom of expression can be necessary to protect human morality, and I suspect that the members of the Seimas who approved the article legalizing the restriction do not know either. It is worth remembering the remark of O. Bismarck that “it is better not to see the laws and the processes of sausage production.”

 

When adopting laws, compromises and deals are made that are more difficult to justify. Some deputies may support laws that they consider worthless, or even harmful, simply because other deputies would vote for the laws they support.

 

You can’t change that, especially since the current members of the Seimas are not modern-day Socrates, but local politicians of a small country who were able to convince voters to vote for them, whatever those reasons may be.

 

There is a very small probability that members of the Seimas will correctly identify beliefs whose dissemination would harm the state and, perhaps, even endanger it. It is much more likely that they will be mistaken, prohibit harmless views, and be unable to more accurately identify those that may be harmful. Honest self-assessment should cultivate a sense of modesty and vulnerability that would discourage the evaluation of other beliefs and encourage one to avoid assuming the role of judge and prophet judging others.”