“If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
Paarl Web, a subsidiary of Naspers, printed R3 million worth of party propaganda for Mugabe after Caxton declined the deal. Business Day reported the story, and now there is some uproar about this.
We are, admittedly, dealing with a tough scenario here. I assume there are very few Mugabe supporters amongst Thought Leader readers, so it might be tempting to create our own, isolated, rules for how Freedom of Expression should be interpreted.
The written word is a strong communicator. It can be heated, biased, derogatory, inflammatory and inaccurate. But it also allows for reflection, thought, and personal introspection. It invites discussion, argument and calls for an opinion, informed or otherwise. Above all, it is passive and should be encouraged as a primary source of opinion making, especially in a country as volatile as Zimbabwe.
If publishers take away Mugabe’s right to publish pamphlets on the eve of his election, they are taking away Zimbabwe’s right to a fair and due process.
For starters, it is not the publishers’, or our right to do so. Had South Africa issued nation wide sanctions against Zimbabwe, the scenario would be different, and we would be obligated to follow our country’s stance.
We should also not get confused with arguments that cite unfair elections due to Mugabe’s actions. These two factors — his right to a fair election, and his abuse of that right — are actually not related. In the most simplistic terms, let me say that two wrongs do not make a right. By interfering with the right of Mugabe’s supporters to read his propaganda, we would be also be guilty of rigging the outcome.
Noam Chmosky, to whom the sub-headline of this post can be attributed, also said:
“If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”
(As an interesting aside, the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is incorrectly attributed to Voltaire. It was actually phrased by Beatrice Hall, a writer, in 1906 when she wrote about Voltaire.)
Admittedly, there are problems with freedom of speech. For starters, there is no guarantee that all points of view will get equal hearing. Did Tsvangirai have R3 million to print his own pamphlets? I don’t know. There is also no guarantee that the truth will prevail. Freedom of speech can itself lead to violence, whether in Zimbabwe, Nazi Germany or your child’s school hall. It can propagate racisms, sexism and religious attacks.
There is no pretty solution, although scores of books have been written to try and come up with one. But I do believe that none of these shortcomings, horrid as they may be, outweigh the horrors associated with lack of freedom of speech. And although I also cannot argue that Paarl Web took this thought process when deciding to print the pamphlets (in fact, I suspect it was a pure business decision), I am pleased that that is the stance they took.
We should not ostracize Paarl Web or Naspers for printing Mugabe’s order. What we should do is encourage them to donate the profits to any opposing party so that they too can have an opportunity to let their views be known, and sway the “truth will prevail” argument.
But we should not interfere with freedom of speech, much as many governments would like us to do. It’s a slippery slope, and the consequences could be disastrous.
Update: There is a petition by NAsper’s staff that you can read about here: http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page1351?oid=11355&sn=Detail
@Eve
You may find it useful to consider that this secular dilemma – ‘freedom of speech’ – disappears if you come at the issue with a different question.
Rather than ‘Should everyone have freedom of speech?’ ask ‘What should be censored?’. It then becomes clear that what is really being discussed here is the right of one set of people to coerce the opinions of another. There can be no such right except by claim to ‘authority’ or ‘correctness’ or ‘desirability’, none of which can logically be vested in one interest and not in another.
Also ‘What should be censored?’ stumps even the keenest censor in the end – because sooner or later it is possible to discover some view or thought (s)he would not wish silenced.
Another way of looking at this may also help.
There are times when all of us find it hard to swallow that people are allowed to say or publish ‘objectionable’ things (as in your example of Mr Mugabe). But can you think of anything you would wish someone else to decide for you that you may not hear?
On this logic, I may not know if ‘freedom of speech’ is a absolute right. But I can be absolutely sure I’m absolutely against censorship.
PS Thanks for the aside on Beatrice Hall, which I didn’t know, though I suppose many have paraphrased Voltaire in similar terms down the years.
O how the chattering class fudge the real reasons and pontificate on decisions that leave the ordinary people to fend for themselves.
The solution for the abnormal situation (Zim is very abnormal) was to accept the print job but with a non negotiable that it would include a piece from the MDC also – a win/win/win. The capitalist gets his profit, the Zim people get both sides of the political story and it is all paid for by Bob.
Brent – practical and non intellectual
Dear Eve
Unfortunately if you were to go to Zimbabwe and witness fist hand what damage has been done to the Zimbabwe economy by the latest campaign. The freedom of expression is being realised at the expense of the Zimbabwe dollar and economy and ultimately the citizens.
I will not go to ZANU PF’s take over of the public transport system with its less than R,015 a litre fuel for Kombis. I will adress the need to have one’s posters on every surface imaginible. Walls, cars, pavements, trees, poles even toilet walls. I will address the externalisation of R3million or US$725 000.00 out of an ailing economy, struggling to feed its people. Failing to mantain infrastructure. I will address the printing of, at today’s rate of R1 to Z$1,5 billion of $4,5 quadrillion zim dollars to pay for the papmhlets. I will address the inflationary consequences of such gestures. I will adress the immorality of brushing one’s ego at the expense of the economy. I will adress the abuse of state resources. I will adress the crowding of the democratic space. I will adress the failure to differentiate between the party and the state. I will adress the stupid reasoning that Zimpapers owned by Government publisher of the Herald and Chronicle newspapers would not have been able to convey the message to be conveyed on their poor quality paper and press. I will address the fact that it has led to endless quantities of litter on Zimbabwe’s streets.
That is before I adress the physical violence on the people of Zimbabwe or the denial of space for the opposition in the state owned media. Need I say more?
Hi Eve,
I dont think any advocate of ‘freedom of speech’ would argue against Mugabe’s right to print propoganda leaflets. I think the argument lies with the printer of such leaflets, in good conscience, deciding wether to print or not. Imagine for a moment, Adolf Hitler contracting a Jewish printer to print leaflets propogating the anihilation of the Jewish race. I think not.
I would agree that Freedom of Speech is sacrosanct.
Now do a new piece explaining that to Mugabe
Dear Eve Dmochowska:
I’m certain that by expressing yourself so intelligibly and intellectually, you will begin to be branded and labelled (by those who are discomforted by your views) as ‘a ZANU-PF thug and/or Zimbabwean Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO’s) agent who moonlights and masquerades as a blogger’. Just wait and see it for yourself………
Great article, well articulated.
And may I self-plagiarize once again, and say that one particular ‘shortcoming’ about Paul Whelan is that he completely lacks the general ability to write something that is less than rational, sensible and reasonable. Trust me, I have been following his comments and posts for some time now!
One can support freedom of speech but that should be serperate from doing business with customers of your own choice.
Surely Naspers can choose with whom they want to do business? – ‘freedom of association’ is equally important.
In any constitutional democracy, rights are enshrined in such a constitution.
If you do not respect the rights of others, and go around murdering people, for instance, many of your rights may be legitimately suspended….i.e. No right is absolute.
Mugabes’ “freedom of expression’ must not be upheld, not because many do not like what he has to say, but because he denies that same right to others, whilst exercising it himself.
By refusing his money and not printing the order, a legitimate business choice, a morally neutral position results. It does not constitute a contribution to a rigging process since the printing company distance themselves from any involvement.
By taking his money and printing the order, a ‘simple’ business decision, the printing company nevertheless becomes an accessory to the rigging process which is taking place, and incurs a moral position through their involvement.
One cannot absolve oneself from moral responsibility by claiming that ones actions are only ‘business’ while there are gross violations of human rights in progress directly using one’s merchandise.
Maybe the government should have sent the army in to unload the Chinese arms shipment, and ensure its safe passage. I mean, Zimbabwe is a ‘sovereign’ state, and the Chinese were concluding a business deal with such state, so what is the problem?
Let Mugabe write an article and publish it in your newspaper. Give Tsvangirai the same opportunity. That is freedom of speech.
To accept blood money for publishing propaganda is a totally different issue and is wrong by any moral yardstick (especially when you know that Mugabe’s opponents don’t have the same access to funds – stolen or otherwise – as he has). That is skewing freedom of speech in favour of a kleptocracy. Naspers should donate the money to the Red Cross or some other relief agency working in Zimbabwe.
I think this might just be the magazine that Paarl Web published, but this is speculation only!
http://allafrica.com/stories/200806250624.html
@Anton – spot on.
I agree that Mugabe should have the full freedom of speech – if anybody who has followed the debacle in Zimbabwe lately thinks that he is being muzzled I would be amazed.
Likewise Morgan T and every other Zimbabwean should be afforded the same rights.
This is where the moral conflict comes in – do you support Mugabe’s propaganda while he is actively clamping down on freedom of speech in his own country?
Eve
And in the legal field even murderes and rapists are accorded the right to legal representation.
The Trial of Charles Taylor was delayed because the judges were convinced his rights to fair legal representation were compromised.
There are many examples i can give.
Now the staff at NASPERS are also free to express themselves. If their company has not been giving out to desrving communities they are free to donate their bonuses to desrving charities. Thats if NASPERS does not grant their wish.
If NASPERS can grant them their wish, a bad precedent will have been set. Private company employees in Zimbabwe-in Banks and all other industries will demand their companies to donate the profits they made out of Zimbabwe.
The question i ask myself and which i have failed to get an answer to in all reports regarding this issue is- while printing those publications, were the employees not aware of what the were printing?
And how many times have they printed publications for which they will later hold the company at ransom and potray their employer as evil?
Or this is just a continuation of the stunts that are earning anybody who cares media attention?
Actually, neither Bob Mugabe’s putative rights, nor the right to freedom of expression, has much to do with the Naspers controversy. (Although Mugabe would probably have claimed, with some justification, unjust interference with his right to campaign, had printers refused to print his propaganda.)
The two main reasons why I would not deplore Naspers’s choice are these:
1. Naspers should not be held liable for the expression of others, as contained in the material it prints. Holding it liable, whether legally or merely in the public perception, sets a very nasty precedent, and sets up printers, distributors, website operators, ISPs, phone companies, and other mere intermediaries, as de facto censors. If they’re expected to check content, they become legally liable for it too. Worse, they’ll be responsible not only for unlawful material, but also for censoring stuff that, in their subjective view, might offend someone’s principles or sensibilities (as is the case here). Hold the author, editor or publisher responsible, and be done with it. This is not a slope anyone should want to get onto. Journalists probably understand this better than most. Few would agree to be second-guessed by a mere printer. That’s what editors and legal advisers are for.
2. The freedom of a company to enter into lawful
contracts and not to be unfairly prejudiced vis-a-vis competitors is the second issue. This goes to what you said about sanctions: indeed, if everyone agreed (by vote in parliament) that sanctions should be applied, then everyone is on a level playing field. A company might choose to take the moral high ground on its own, in the hope that its stance wins it plaudits, publicity or new customers, but it shouldn’t be expected to do so.
Good to see someone think beyond the revulsion one feels for Mugabe. Well done.
wait? naspers made these booklets? wow.
if you believe and i believe, then all good things are possible: 100 reasons why most zimbabweans will vote for zanu pf and president robert mugabe in the runoff election on 27 june 2008.
[yes, i've got one. walking around with one is essentially the only way to travel unmolested in harare.]
reading through it would bring a tear to the eye of the editors of pravda circa 30 years ago. the sheer… blatancy of the lies.
but i’m sure bob’s supporters will come up with something to say.
The flaw in your arguement is that Mugabe is not reasonable and the situation is not fair.
And as to your comment about people having the right to print what they want I understand that they were deceived as to what it was they were printing on their automated system.
Your viewpoint reminds me of two things:
1) the Nurembourg war trials, where the Nazi politicians had the right to defend themselves, whilst the vitims were mostly silent, being dead. And the evidence sometimes consisted of lampshades made of human skin.
2) The Solidarity Peace Trust report “Punishing Dissent, Silencing Citizens, the Zimbabwe Elections 2008″ , where an informant says that a senior police officer made the comment at a planing meeting: “We know the United Nations will send in Peacekeepers but people will have died by then and there will be no resurrecting them.”
So your right to free speech comes down to allowing a murderer to deny he has done anything wrong after killing the witnesses to stop them testifying against him.
Which is not fair.
Why should Mugabe qualify for freedom of expression when he subverts same in Zimbabwe? Off with him!!
I really hope I’ll get support for my leaflet campaign to keep the Reitz hostel video tradition alive, re-arm the Skielik kid and Mr Mamela for president.
My moral compass is spinning, must be at the moral North Pole.
Here’s an interesting one:
I assume (always a dangerous thing) that there are not too many Afrikaans readers of Thoughtleader, and those who are here may not be with the “hip” crowd.
My point? Afrikaans cult artist, writer, singer, folkie and all-round nice guy Koos Kombuis wrote a book, “The Complete Secret Diaries of God” that is maybe a tad controversial and not too mainstream.
Paarl Web refused to print the book because it had been “offended by the contents of the book”.
As a known re-born capitalist, then I fully agree with “business is business”. I’m in business to make money, not to make moral judgement calls. If someone wants to use my services, and they are willing to pay for it, then sure. If I then say, wait a minute, I don’t want to do business with “x” for moral/ethical reasons, I set a precedent. And now that’s the line by which I shall be judged.
Paarl Web refused to print a book by a local writer under the notion that it’s morally objectionable – now it’s printing flyers for Mugabe? THAT I find a trifle hard to swallow.
Paarl Web’s credibility has gone down the tubes with this one. If they printed both or neither, it’s an open and shut case, but now it has put its foot in its mouth.
Check this out: http://blogs.24.com/ViewBlog.aspx?blogid=11441175-d316-4815-a3fc-89879edc0dba
You forgot one thing Eve, Nasper’s workers have expressed their freedom not to be associated with a mass murderer and the CEO is also free to apologise for the error.
I agree with your opinion but believe that Nasper is right to admit that they should not have taken the job after all. Mugabe and his thugs are free to campaign but no peace loving citizen of any country must abate murder, rape, rigging, thuggery and all the ills associated with Mugabe and his party.
Of course Mr Mugabe should be allowed freedom of speech. Isn’t that one of the corner-stones of a free and civilized society?
However, and in his case, it is a fairly massive ‘however’, he wants freedom of speech while at the same time denying those who hold different opinions to him, their chance at freedom of speech.
A person’s vote at the ballot box is their ultimate expression of that freedom, but those who are not pledging to vote for Mr Mugabe are having their arms chopped.
And we are worrying about Mr Mugabe’s rights because why?
To whom it may concern -
If we refuse Mr Mugabe freedoms because he is guilty of refusing the same freedoms to others, have not his values, and not ours, won?
@ Ivo Vegter,
Yes Ivo, from a strictly legal perspective you are quite correct.
The last thing anyone needs is the “nasty precedent” of more classes of statutory interference in the rights to free expression and dissemination of information.
Naspers can and should remain free to print anything they want without any legal accountability for content. We already have a growing number of interferences with this right by state authorities for things they don’t like (hate speech, forms of pornography, incitement to violence or sedition, violation of ‘the right to dignity’ whatever that means, etc.) which are indeed ‘censorship’
Where I disagree with your comment is that the voluntary moral high ground be taken only for commercial or other gain, “[...] in the hope that its stance wins it plaudits, publicity or new customers, [...]”
Maybe expecting people to act on moral conscience alone is expecting too much.
You are right about freedom of speech being absolute but I think you are wrong about what would constitute constraining speech. One does not have the absolute right to be published by a private entity. If ZANU-PF had its own presses there would be no moral argument for constraining distribution of its printed materials. Refusing to accept a printing contract is in no way censorship it is the exercise of free will by a private actor.
Morally I think that Caxton did the right thing in refusing and that those who choose to pull their business from Naspers are exercising their own right to speech.
The only solution now is for Morgan Tsvangirai to form a Government-in-exile (he did get the majority of votes in the last election) and to start printing a new Zimbabwe currency to replace the worthless one of Mugabe. If he convinced all the Zimbabweans living outside the country to use it, it would deprive the regime of the income it receives from relatives sending money home!
Mr Hitler only asked me to make these nifty little gas nozzles. I didn’t know what they were for, I did nothing wrong.
Eve – freedom of expression is not the issue here nor is it the argument put forward by Naspers in defence of their actions. A disingenious attempt to distance itself using an illogical argument (ie ignorance)is precisiely what has got Naspers into trouble with their staff, their customers and the public in general.
Let us have some common sense. Caxton obviously had a good manager, who saw the problem in doing the print run, and kicked the problem upstairs – where it went all the way to the board, who turned it down. Naspers manager was neither as good, or not as experienced. However did Mugabe not choose a branch office and not the main office of the company for just that reason?
How do you define freedom of speech? I understood it to mean that individuals should be protected against government censoring.
It has not been made illegal for Mugabe to print his pamphlets. A business has simply refused to deal with him.
To coerce a business to accept a contract that it does not want would be a real violation of freedom.
I’ve just read your piece on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe. Of course Mugabe/ZANU PF and any other political party in zimbabwe have the right to print and disemminate election material but whilst the ruling party award themselves this right, the opposition party MDC are harassed by Mugabe’s thugs at every turn and prevented from exercising their right to freedom of expression.
As Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his message for World Freedom Day on 3 May said “When information flows freely, people are equipped with tools to take control of their lives,when the flow of information is hindered – whether for political or technological reasons – our capacity to function is stunted. A free, secure and independent media is one of the foundations of peace and democracy. Attacks on freedom of the press are attacks against international law, humanity, and freedom itself – everything the UN stands for.”
Does mugabe’s right to freeedom of expression extend to blowing up independent (non government owned) newspapers’ printing presses, hijacking their delivery trucks, persecuting and arresting journalists and imposing a punitive 70% duty on imported ‘opposition’ newspapers which have to be printed outside the country to avoid closure. This duty on The Zimbabwean was imposed before the elections to try and stop the paper from reaching the populace. Today, as I speak, the duty is still in place. Here is a recent comment on the subject from Wilf Mbanga, the exiled Zimbabwean founder and editor of The Zimbabwean paper.
Sent: 24 August 2008 17:59
Subject: Govt taxes stifle press freedom in Zimbabwe
pse pass this on to all your contacts. we have to keep the spotlight on this issue until it is resolved. thanks.
Dear Colleagues – thanks so much for your continued support for press freedom in Zimbabwe. please could you do whatever possible to condemn and continue to protest against the punitive taxes on foreign news coming into Zimbabwe. because of the media legislation we are forced to publish the Zimbabwean outside the country (in south Africa) and since June – just a few weeks after our truck was hijacked and set on fire – we have been forced to pay 70% import duty to get the paper into Zimbabwe. this has resulted in the closure of The Zimbabwean on Sunday and the reduction of the circulation of The Zimbabwean in Zimbabwe from 150,000 a week to 50,000 copies . The Mugabe regime has thus successfully pretty much silenced the largest circulation newspaper in the country – and the most independent one ! and effectively killed the Sunday edition. And the world is silent. we are so frustrated!
Please call or email me if you would like to discuss anything or require additional information.
Whatever you can do to help would be much appreciated.
thank you.
Wilf Mbanga
The Zimbabwean
I adore the important learning you recommend in your post. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here frequency. I am quite sure they will get a lots of new stuff here than anybody else!