Head Tale

Given the hash tags I’m using for this post, I suspect there are going to be a couple different audiences for this post – those who are interested in content related to Freedom to Read Week and those who’ve seen the writing I’ve done as Social Media Director for one of the candidates in the current race for the new leader of the Saskatchewan NDP.

Since the majority of my political writing has come on Mondays, I was trying to think of a way that I could combine Freedom of Expression and the current Sask NDP leadership race into a single post today. After all, what is more core to the idea of democracy than people’s ability to express their ideas openly?

I couldn’t come up with a single overriding theme for a post so instead, I thought I’d do quick hits on a few different topics where the two subjects intersect.

Before I begin, I’m sure everybody reading this is aware but Freedom to Read Week is an annual, week-long celebration, coordinated by the Book & Periodical Council of Canada where writers, publishers, educators, librarians, lawyers, civil rights activists, book sellers and others celebrate people’s freedom to read what they want without fear of censorship.

The name “Freedom to Read” is a bit of a misnomer as the week is about more than books – it encompasses art, movies, music, web sites and various other forms of communication. So, at least for most people, the week is about exposing all types of censorship and defending all forms of expression.
So how does that relate to the current Sask NDP leadership race? I’m glad you asked…

Trolls
I’ve already shared some of my thoughts about trolls in an earlier post. As the race draws to a close, we’ve seen another jump in the number of people who are coming to Ryan’s Facebook page and other forums leaving gratuitous comments that aren’t an attempt to engage or debate but simply to, well, shit on things.

I took a fairly firm stand when this issue first came up in the first half of the race. There were some on Ryan’s campaign who felt that the trolls were most easily dealt with by deleting their comments and moving on (and in some ways, they’re right.) One person on the campaign said to me: “Is there an Internet law against deleting comments?” No, of course not, but it gets back to the type of campaign that I hoped we were trying to represent and the type of leader Ryan was going to be – one who was open and tolerant of all views, even ones he didn’t agree with. And part of that is leaving these types of angry/hateful/inane comments see the light of day rather than hiding them in the dark.

Beyond that, it’s a real slippery slope from deleting (censoring?) ones that say “Fuck the NDP!” to deleting poorly written ones that just happen to express a different point of view to deleting all dissenting points of view. It’s easy to say “oh, we’d never do that” but that also begs the question of whose it is that to decide which is which?

My view, which I think we’ve adhered to for the most part, is to let these comments stand and let their lack of…insight/logic/generally accepted standards for spelling…be their own downfall. (A recent favourite: “GTFO Connies!” where the poster meant “Commies”. In fact, I’m thinking of having a “GTFO Connie!” shirt made for convention!)

Anyhow, I’m not pure and selfless either – I’ve deleted enough of these comments myself – although I hope usually when they’re veering into hate language (which *is* illegal and an easy place to draw the line.)

“Preventative” Censorship
Another post I did during the leadership race compared the view counts for the most recent videos from all four candidates. At the time, I hadn’t noticed this but re-watching one (and then all) of them, I realised that Ryan was the only one who had left comments enabled for his video.  Now, I know YouTube comments are widely regarded as some of the worst on the web. And there’s also a question of capacity – campaigns probably don’t want to be spending all their time deleting/responding to “Suck it Connies!” comments.  But again, these types of micro-decisions say a lot about the macro approach of the candidates involved – who is a fan of openness and transparency and, when you get right down to it, who defends democracy – even when it’s ugly. (YouTube comments as the embodiment of democracy? You heard it here first!)

Self-Censorship
This comes in a couple different forms. I think it comes on a personal level where volunteers censor what they say or do in the interest of the greater good of getting their candidate elected. I know for myself, as part of the “positive” campaign, I’ve restrained myself from giving the full expression of my opinions about matters of one kind or another (note how my Halfway Recap cites Memorable and Appreciated Moments for each campaign but not “Moment Candidate Acted Like An Idiot”.) 😉 Of course, that can also be a good thing – I’ve probably avoided putting my foot in my mouth with ranty-pants posts numerous times because of Ryan’s positive approach which has rubbed off on me and his other volunteers.

Speaking of Ryan, the other form is the self-censorship that I think the candidates probably all engage in to differing degrees – from not saying exactly what they think about certain topics, policies and people to trying to spin and homogenize their messages so they appeal to the broadest swath of the electorate or avoid saying/doing anything which carries any potential risk of blowback against them. (My own take on that is once you worry too much about what your opponent will use against you, you’ve already lost.)

I understand it’s all part of the game. But call me idealistic, I still think the electorate would respect someone who speaks honestly without resorting to non-statements and equivocation like so many “professional” politicians tend to do.

Facebook Friend “Censorship”
Okay, this probably doesn’t meet the “censorship” test. But this is as good of place as any to mention that I think it’s really bad form when one of the four leadership candidates de-friends you on Facebook after having accepted your Friend Request at the start of the campaign, for, as far as I can tell, no good reason. Again, actions like this give a lot of insight into the leadership styles that certain people may engage in, no matter how much their leadership statements may say otherwise about their being inclusive and team-oriented! 😉