Interview on the purpose of Postmasters

Franz (F) interviews Artie (A) concerning the terms "free speech" and "democratic" as used in Article 2 Purpose.

F: The aim of this interview is to establish how free speech is tied to democracy, in order to support the Art. 2, and the whole project.

A: OK. I'm in!


F: Which freedom(s) is (are) involved, or even required, in a free speech zone?

A: I suppose the freedom to express yourself as fully as possible.


F: Talking implies a content, but also a form. What about free speech?

A: Free speech or expression can take many different forms or no form at all. Casual conversation between two people may be relatively formless, but an interview usually follows a form. A casual chat or conversation may flucuate from the narrative (what I did today) to the expository (topical news of the day) to the dramatic (telling a joke in character).

At this moment, you and I are following a formal treatment of the conversation and that form is called an Interview. An interview is usually in a question and response form, and features a democratic principle known as "taking turns". First Ferenk asks a question, then Artie responds. The questions are usually organized in advance and then the interviewer improvises the interview with this outline of questions. I say "improvise" because the interviewer has little foreknowledge of which direction the responses may lead the questions!

But there is a difference in the degree of formal treatment from chat to conversation to discussion to deliberation and decision. And free speech makes allowances for all forms and non-forms.


F: What does a non-form of speech look like? As it is dedicated to express something, doesn't it anyway embody a decision?

A: I don't think that a chat has much form, whether it is online or in real life. You see your friend, you stop and say "hello", you talk a few minutes and say "goodbye". I suppose everything has a form, even a chat. But what degree of form? There is very little form to a chat or conversation. In contrast, a discussion has more form. A discussion is an organization of people and their speech. In the expository mode, as we get deeper into decision making processes, we require more form. But the same applies to the narrative and dramatic modes. We may seek a lesser or greater degree of formal treatment.


F: Must free speech have rules? If yes, on what are they based? If not, is it still language, able to be understood in common?

A: Free speech does not have to have rules. But then should there be a rule that says "There shall be no rules"? Should you and I be restricted in our freedom to apply a discussion form to our conversation? I think that much of what passes for "free speech" is very restrictive of full expression.

If there are going to be rules, then I would say that the rules should be aimed at eliminating inequalities. Children playing games abide by rules, and always the issue is one of "equality". I view discussion and group-building as a game, like any other game. In a game of cards, we take turns, we follow an order around the circle. All games are played this way. The rules make the game. Without the rule, we have no game.

This interview is like a game. It has rules. the rules are that you have a turn and then I have a turn and this is right because there are natural inequalities, and we are introducing one small element of equality into the game. And this is the relation of free speech to democracy - that the players should be equal.


F: That was my next question :"May we compare those rules to democracy's ones?".

A: I think it's a fair comparison. And a useful one.


F: Democracy is a political notion. Does it mean free speech has a political nature? Which one?

A: This is a question of power. Politics is power. Free speech is the
beginning of the road to power. So with a policy of free speech in a
forum, we can empower the members to take political control of their
own destinies in online communities.


F: In which sense does free speech lead to power, then to a real freedom?

A: I think that free speech allows people to organize ideas and activities.


F: Doesn't the Internet have a role to play in developing free speech, then democracy? Why doesn't it have for now this function, rather than its commercial dimension?

A: The average person came to the Internet because of it's novelty.
The technocrat wrote the rules for communication and organization.
Although It may be technically skilled, the technocrat is a neophyte in
the liberal arts and lacks the ethical training to communicate and
organize people. We need leadership training for the average Internet
user.


F: Ok, thanks for your answers.

What's Democracy for you? Join the Post a Month discussion now in progress.

NOTES: