Fisk on Terror by Video
Robert Fisk in today's Independent: Terror by video: How Iraq's kidnappers drew their inspiration from horrors of Chechnya highlights the unspeakable vileness of some of the people whose free speech and free access to information I would seek to defend. In this subscription-only article, Fisk claims that a video that went on sale in Fallujah more than six months ago, showing a Russian soldier being executed by Chechnyans, was intended as a training manual for Iraq's new executioners. He describes how the use of video has become increasingly sophisticated as a weapon of terror. All sides have joined the video war, he says, citing US videos of Saddam's trial and the "Allawi" tape, alleged to be made by the Iraqi authorities (which must both pale by comparison). The execution videos are rarely shown in full by al-Jazeera or al-Arabia.
There's an edit war on wikipedia relating to the rights and wrongs of linking to such a site, or indeed any site showing the Kim Sun-il video.
But in an outrageous spin-off, websites - especially one that now appears to be in California - are now posting the full and gory contents. One American website has posted the beheading of the American Nicholas Berg and the South Korean hostage in full and bloody detail. "Kim Sun-il Beheading Video Short Version, Long Version" the web-site offers. The "short version" shows a man severing the hostage's neck. The long version includes his screaming appeal for mercy - which lasts for at least two minutes and is followed by his slaughter. On the same screen and at the same time, there are advertisements for "Porn" and "Horse Girls."I am finding it increasingly difficult to say anything about all this. Though it's not news that the videos are available on porn sites, it's something I want to push to the back of my mind. But hang on - are those who are in favour of censoring it saying that Fisk shouldn't see it either?
There's an edit war on wikipedia relating to the rights and wrongs of linking to such a site, or indeed any site showing the Kim Sun-il video.
4 Comments:
Some difficult questions here, but one can't of course subject free speech to the caveat that one approves or agrees with what is being said. Though one can reasonably limit free speech if it's done with care. It becomes very risky when one start making statements like "You can host this video because you're a responsible journalistic site, but you can't because you're a nasty porn site." Or like "You can watch this video because your interests are journalistic and humanitarian, but you can't because your interest is ghoulish or prurient."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I wondered what that icon was - turns out it's a dusbin!
Peter, I agree that free speech is indivisible. Ogrish just makes it hard (emotionally) to defend. I was clumsily attempting some sort of reductio ad absurdam, as I don't think many people would say that even journalists shouldn't see the video. So how could they say any other adult shouldn't?
With regard to the Wiki debate, perhaps there's something in what Chajath says - that a link to BBC (assuming it had the video, which it doesn't) would be different (semiotically) from a link to ogrish, even though what is shown is the same. (A bit like the Borges story where the Don Quixote written by Pierre Menard reads differently from that written by Cervantes.) Choosing whom you link to is a matter of taste, rather than human rights, though.
Wikipedia seems to have stabilised on the side of informational liberalism, which is where I stand - particularly where a whole country is concerned, rather than just a wiki. When a government bans a site, it's truly censorship. The position is a bit different where smaller groups are concerned, as you can always go outside the group and read what you want to read, and shout about it.
As for Fisk, my impression is that he's simply registering disgust at the ogrish spin-off, rather than suggesting censorship. And so am I - I hate having to defend that sort of person. But I feel I must.
Free speech is finally subject to the rights of others. A mob outside a house baying for the occupant's blood has IMO lost their right. The conundrum of Article 29 is how far the rights of others extend.
Post a Comment
<< Home