Yesterday, I said that during Freedom to Read Week, often everything starts to look like a Freedom of Expression issue. I didn’t mention another aspect of this in that sometimes, something that looks like a freedom of expression issue could also actually highlight something else – potentially even something criminal.
And lo and behold, something along those lines happened today as former Senior Advisor to Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan, was caught on video making some *very* controversial remarks about people who view child pornography, the harm (or lack thereof) and criminality (or lack thereof) of engaging in such activity.
Now, the immediate reaction was a giant uproar as you might expect.
But, as I cautioned at the start of FTRW, one of the first things we have to do if we truly believe in freedom of expression is not to rush to judgement because of mere words – whether it is something as simple as saying something is “crazy” (which might offend mental health advocates) to words as loaded as “child pornography”. And then, even if the words (not the actions) are (potentially) offensive defend them even more.
I’ve had my own experience with what I felt was an over-reaction to a single word when I tried to get my paper on user fees in Alberta Public Libraries published. The original title was “Useless as Tits on a Bull: User Fees in Alberta Public Libraries” (which is a simile referring to something not needed rather than having any real connection to tits, human or otherwise. I thought the title was quite clever as I was using various bovine similes as sub-headers throughout this paper about some shenanigans in Wild Rose country and felt that a provocative paper needed a provocative title. The title was eventually changed to the equally effective “Cash Cow: User Fees in Alberta Public Libraries” but I could never get past the feeling that I wasn’t being asked to change my title because one was more or less effective, just that the editor either didn’t like the word and/or didn’t want to deal with potential complaints.
So that’s just one recent example of why I’m cautious about over-reaction to words, no matter how loaded they might be. For example, I have defended something which I felt was mis-labeled as “child porn” once in the past but that post was extremely difficult to write because how do you defend something that it feels like everybody else has already labeled as evil, illegal scum?
Anyhow, I’ve watched the Flanagan video and read the text of his comments. Although I absolutely defend Flanagan’s right to say whatever he wants, I also celebrate that the consequences for his comments were swift – he was let go from a pundit position at CBC, cut loose by the Wild Rose Party whose campaign he managed in the last Alberta election, been distanced by the University of Calgary where he’s a prof (er, since my first draft earlier today, he’s now “retiring”) and been condemned by the PMO.
I mentioned off the top that this situation felt closer to criminal than freedom of speech and I have some strong circumstantial evidence that leads me to that conclusion and why this I feel this isn’t just a case of “oops, I mis-spoke” which is what he’s claiming.
- As I pointed out in a past blog post during Freedom to Read Week, the cut-off for most free speech advocates is when things move into the criminal – hate speech, child porn, etc. – except for a few Libertarian-types who believe pretty much anything goes. This is apparently the type of Libertarian Flanagan is.
- He’s made controversial comments about child pornography before back in 2009 (which weren’t followed up on at the time apparently but which were the cause of the firestorm this time when they *were* referenced)
- He also ended up on the mailing list of the Man-Boy Love Association for “several years“
- His initial comments during this controversy seemed to indicate that he thought viewing child pornography pictures “caused no harm” (as if the children depicted aren’t grossly damaged)
Again, this is all circumstantial but like I said, to me, this goes beyond a free speech issue and there are lots of pointers that make me think this might be a criminal situation. I don’t know if the RCMP have the authority to inspect his computer because of what he said and the other things I’ve listed.
But I do have pretty strong suspicions about what they might find if he’s a guy who thinks child pornography hurts no one. (It wouldn’t be the first time police have had to investigate his over-the-line comments so there’s definitely precedent.)
Comments 2