Freedom of Speech

Maria Arpa

Wednesday Whisper

6 May 2020

This week

Freedom of Speech

Plus…

Maria’s Midweek Mindfulness

and

OK, so now I have concerns.

Whatever your views on David Icke, one thing is for sure, he is not a purveyor of hate. The opposite in fact. His message is oneness. So I am shocked and surprised (and I hope you will be too) to find he has been banned from YouTube and Facebook.

This blog is not about David Icke. He is just an example. It’s about Freedom of Speech. I understand that not everything called Free Speech is actually Free Speech, some of it is Noxious Speech intentionally designed to incite injury, loss or harm (and whether it still counts as free speech is not for today’s topic) and is very different to Unpopular Speech which promotes different views to the majority or mainstream without inciting hatred or violence (which is not the same as inciting civil disobedience).

And now Unpopular Speech is being interfered with by private companies who are heavily invested with Government policies. It is of concern to all of us that we are seeing a fast growing pattern of powerful plutocratic companies collaborating with the US and UK government to decide what ideas we are allowed to engage with. Allowed to continue, this is a dangerous path in which rapidly promoting speech from the authorities while slowly banning other speech is used as a mask to lead us into an era of controlled information. For example, media outlets have been banned from linking Corona Virus to 5G by Ofcom. The trick here is not to focus on 5G and CV, it’s to see how information is suppressed. There are many health and science beliefs that were laughed at and then subsequently were proven correct. How does a media regulator decide this for us?

In my worst case scenario, this is the 21^st Century version of book burning until all divergent opinions have been eliminated and young people of the future will not miss Free Speech or Free Thinking because they never had it. And, the internet becomes a pipeline for propaganda.

In my best case scenario, we individually and collectively make it clear that we do not want to be controlled in this way.

Maria’s Midweek Mindfulness

I have a message of an alternative to the mainstream hierarchical systems which use power-over by the few to control the many. It’s a message in which we use nonviolence as our being, restorative practice as our doing and the Dialogue Road Map and Nonviolent Communication as our speaking.

The Wednesday Whisper

Would you support me if I got banned?

If this blog has any resonance for you, please reply, comment and share.

6 Comments

Celia Peachey
Posted 5 years ago Reply

Clear concise truth is how I read you post, we must be the ones to stand up and say no. How do we see what laws have been passed and protected our rights. Apparently protests have started in Germany and America. I’m also part of an intention prayer group, we as a team are taking actions to share information appropriately. Is there hero human rights lawyers working with the doctors and scientists? Great post!
- Maria Arpa
  Posted 5 years ago Reply
  
  Thanks Celia
  Much love as always
  Maria
Cordelia Bryan
Posted 5 years ago Reply

Powerful stuff as always and another excellent wake-up call!

Yes, absolutely to your best case scenario – “we individually and collectively make it clear that we do not want to be controlled in this way.” On good days, I spot evidence of this in many walks of life and hope that collectively this voice is becoming louder and more potent. Ironically, where I see this most is on social media – the very platform that your piece points to as under attack.

Holding that vision of the development of a fairer, kinder more humane world is what keeps me going. How about others? What keeps you going?
- Maria Arpa
  Posted 5 years ago Reply
  
  Hi Cordelia
  Great stuff. Yes, I absolutely agree that a fairer, kinder and more humane world is the hope I hold too.
  Maria
Andrew
Posted 5 years ago Reply

Maria, I very much look forward to your ‘Wednesday Whisper.’ They are always thought provoking and usuallly uplifting. But today was a little different for me. I was equally ‘shocked and surprised’ to see your comment that David Icke was not a ‘purveyor of hate.’ What is he then? How do you describe a man who has denied that the holocaust occurred and then denied that he ever denied it? And a man who spreads conspiracy theories like confetti… with an aim that the organisations or persons he refers to are the enemy or are out to get us. That appears to me to be pretty hateful. And blaming the virus on 5G has incited violence against mobile masts. Those perpetrators must have hated something or someone to have done that. How was that hatred caused?

Of course, not all conspiracy theorists are bad or full of hate. Some are just misguided. But many are purveyors of hate, in the purist sense, dressed up or disguised to look otherwise. The very nature of building a conspiracy against the so-called “them” or “they” may often appear to be innocent but ultimately the “them” or “they” are given a face or identified… and then as we say… the rest is history.

I think we often forget that sometimes there is actually a truth and there is actually a lie, or at least it is much more likely to be one rather than the other. Telling people that 5G is causing this coronavirus is more likely than not an untruth… especially given that we do not presently have 5G active in the UK and there is no 5G, even in its infancy in Iran.

Sadly, I know of two people who have died from this virus… giving air time to someone who claims their death was caused by something it was not, could possibly be described by their loved ones as being hateful. I applaud YouTube and Facebook for having the sense to take down the video.

Keep safe and well.

P.s. Supporting you after you were banned would depend on why you were banned!
- Maria Arpa
  Posted 5 years ago Reply
  
  Hello Andrew
  Thank you for your honest reply. It sounds to me that in me writing the phrase ‘not a purveyor of hate’ you have a view, drawn from evidence you have read or heard, and you would like me to consider your and other views on his work and motivations? And, because I do not know him personally and have never had the opportunity to question his motivations, I am always willing to accept that I may have got it totally wrong and be open to examining my statement. And that isn’t where I want to put my energy in this piece.
  In this week’s blog I was using an example and it seems I could have chosen better examples.
  The point of the post is not to dwell on my examples, it’s to consider that while any of us may approve of stuff we don’t like being removed, I wonder what it will be like when stuff we believe to be really important is banned.
  I’m reminded of two important quotes:
  The first about Freedom of Speech
  ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’
  and the second about persecution:
  First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
  Because I was not a socialist.
  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
  Because I was not a trade unionist.
  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
  Because I was not a Jew.
  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
  Is it possible for you to consider that while you may not like, agree with or support the examples I have given (and I’m not suggesting whether I agree or disagree with them) the sentiment I am trying to express has some validity?
  Always good to hear from you
  Best wishes
  Maria