Tempest in a Teapot : the Raven Blackbane Saga
A principle that is paid lip service in our society, by all but the
most radical few, is that each man should feel free to speak his
mind, without fear. It is a principle that has been so highly revered
in the past, as to be written into the law of the land, and be viewed
as one of the defining traits of Western Democratic civilisation. But
laws can do us no good, in the absence of the social institutions
needed to incline people to respect them, no matter how much lip
service they may be paid, or how long they've been on the books.
Theoretically, we, as citizens of a liberal democracy have the legal
right to speak freely. Traditionally, there has been a recognition
that one should not attempt to circumvent the legal guarantees of
this freedom, through knowingly wrongful prosecution based on false
accusations. "Trumped up charges", as they're called.
How times have changed. Here is an example, presented for your
reading displeasure, of just where our new "values" can lead.
In this account, you will see a skeptical newcomer encounter an
intolerant newsgroup (the alt.religion.wicca of 1997). The group
will attack. Raven will counterattack. This will lead to a cycle of
hostility, in which the group regulars will refuse to see that they
have been trolling, as much as they have been trolled. There was
little to no pretense of tolerance for divergent points of view.
Hostility came in direct response to the expression of views, that
the community didn't care for.
No big deal, you say ? This one lead to an attempt to send our
unpopular newcomer to prison. Not a very slick one, fortunately,
but a popular and persistant one. The claim, which didn't stand
up to scrutiny, was that the newcomer had made a serious of
threatening and harassing phone calls to the regulars. Allegedly,
the "victims" of these calls then contacted the FBI.
As I said, these weren't the slickest people around. A little
carelessness on their part, and a little digging on some of ours,
was enough to make the stories fall apart, long before anyone saw
a courtroom. What is frightening, is not any formidability on the
part of the guilty parties, here. What is frightening is how
comfortable so many people were, with an act where even the pretense
of lawful conduct, was altogether absent until the initial challenges
to the 'official story', started to cut into it. What is appalling,
was the hostility that simple honesty would inspire in so many - the
inversion of the sense of morality that freedom depends on, for its
existence. This time, the lynch mob was inept, but if these attitudes
gain in acceptance, will future mobs necessarily be as ineffective ?
Look at what this came to. Perjury. Conspiracy to engage in wrongful
prosecution. Libel, not just against the one attacked, but also
against anyone who dared to question this effort, persisted in to
this very day. (June 26, 1999). Attempted obstruction of justice.
All so that a handful of people - our petite cabal, here on
alt.religion.wicca - could hold on to the feeling that they were in
control of what was supposed to be a free and open floor of
discussion. This, in a religious newsgroup !
The radical few mentioned before, might say that nothing wrong
happened here, because it was the will of the majority that
our newcomer be dealt with in this fashion, and the will of the
majority should be law. But if the people who would question
someone's idea of what that majority will should be, for any reason
don't feel free to do so openly, will the decisions made by the
individuals constituting that majority ever be fully informed ones?
If not, can they be free ones, at all, and will we ever even
necessarily know what they are?
In some places, one will hear the argument that the firm
establishment of the rights of the individual, is a thing to be
opposed, because it puts limits on the expression of the majority
will, and thus conflicts with the value of democratic rule. But this
conflict is pure illusion, because democracy is the very thing that
ceases to exist, in any meaningful sense, when those rights
disappear.
In other places, especially online, one will hear the "argument" that
one shouldn't be subjecting the behavior of others to scrutiny or
criticism, and certainly should never suggest that there is any sort
of behavior that is viewed as being socially unacceptable, because
people should feel free to do whatever they feel like. There should
be no rules. But look at what went on in this case, and go out, and
see what happened to people in a number of others, and ask yourself
if you'd really feel free to speak freely there.
Our anarchist might say that you're free to speak, as long as you're
willing to deal with the retribution that follows. But even under the
most authoritarian government, one has that sort of "freedom". If you
are going to be punished for expressing a point of view, does it
matter whether the people administering the punishment, or see to it
that it is administered, do so with the approval of the government?
That is to say, that clique that is viewed as being influential
enough, and well enough established, as to be viewed as being the
government?
But if another clique gains enough influence, that its will governs
the course of events, and others obey it out of fear, does it not
become a sort of secondary, shadow government, whose legitimacy may
rightly be questioned? If so, how can one claim that its abuses
are any less objectionable, than those of the acknowledged
government, or that oppression by the former, is any less real than
that by the latter? Would one not have to say that its whims begin
to define a rather dubious, secondary body of effective law? In
seeking to set aside all rules, don't we merely set aside the process
by which unjust rules are rationally discarded?
Anarchy is a mirage. There will always be rules in effect, wherever
there are people, whether we wish to acknowledge them as such or not.
The only question will be, whether they are ones that will reflect
the best, or the worst, that is to be found in people.
Will they be ones that grew out of centuries of open and rational
discussion of human experience, and a well tested effort to deal with
the problems that arose in the course of that experience? Or, will
they be the whims of a volatile and hostile mob, comprised of the
sort of people who will give up their freedom of thought and
conscience in order to fit in, lead by whoever is dishonest enough to
be willing to manipulate it, to their own advantage? To cast away
the rule of law, is to choose the latter, and blindly hope for the
best.
Let's see if we can figure out how things could go so wrong, both in
the online and Wiccan communities, and what, if anything, can be done
to prevent a recurrence.
|