There are times when it's better to have no laws rather than any of the laws that we're going to get. Free speech and press freedom is one of those times.
This newspaper says the Digital Security Act was misused. Undoubtedly it was. The answer, though, is not to have an act which guarantees press freedom, or free speech, as long as what is printed or said is OK by this or some other standard.
Rather, it's to simply insist that speech and the press are free. That is, we have no special law about them at all -- they're both just subject to the general law of the country.
Of course we don't want -- and should not allow -- people to libel others. Nor to incite violence. But the cures for these are to have libel laws which apply to everyone, laws against incitement to violence (which should be tightly defined as direct and immediate violence too) which apply to print, speech, talking to the neighbours and TV and radio and, well, everyone.
This is not because I am a free speech absolutist, even though I am. The reason is for a slightly different reason.
Say we have some set of standards about what may be said. Only things that are true for example. Or only things that are beneficial to society. Or positive -- stop with all the negativity, guys! You know, like any number of countries are trying to say about online and social media conversations. We must stop people being misogynistic online, or refuse to allow climate change deniers to gain prominence. Or fascists must not be given the oxygen of publicity.
Well, OK, they're reasonable enough goals and many would sign up to those things.
But the moment we have a system which defines what might be said then we've got to have a monitor, a grouping, which examines what is said in order to agree that this is something that may be said. Which, initially, might well be fine. We'll appoint all the right people to that bureaucracy and they'll only insist upon the very extremes that really shouldn't be said in a civilized society.
But once we've got a bureaucracy -- or a special organization, or a police force -- which defines what can be said, then those who wish to control what can be said will work, plot, and connive to take over the running of that body. That's just the way humans work. If there's a power base, then those who want power will work to take over that power base.
We might end up with people insisting that misogyny is any statement insisting that women aren't as good as men except for when they're better. Or that climate change denial is anything that doesn't support specific plans for dealing with it. As to who are the fascists who must not be allowed any publicity, that's usually defined as anyone half a step to the right of the person doing the defining.
Free actually does mean free. As soon as there's anyone who is able to decide what may be done, then we'll have people struggling to take that power over what is to be limited.
As we had over who may have a licence to be in business, or who may have a special licence to have a profitable business, as we did over who could borrow money at what rate. The things we've decided we're not going to have again as we're right now cleaning up the rubble of allowing politics to determine those things.
And that really important point we've got to remember. It might all start out as not being politics but as soon as there is a centre of power to do anything, then politics will attempt to take control of it.
For that's just what politics is, the attempt to be in power.
A free market has to be free, a free press has to be free, free speech has to be free. Otherwise, what's the point of any of them?
