When I discovered The Pirate Party UK a couple of months ago, I thought it was going to be exciting and revolutionary new party for the people of the Internet. I completely agree with their goals, to drastically shorten the term of copyright, add fair use clauses to UK copyright law for personal copying, reform the patent system, abolish Crown Copyright, put an end to the evergreening of medical patents, prevent excessive monitoring and surveillance by companies and government and to promote freedom of speech and expression.
However, it turns out they’re just like the other parties. Here’s why I won’t be joining the PPUK any time soon:
After a Telegraph blogger made a reference to some childish remarks posted about Peter Mandelson which could be criticised as homophobic, PPUK’s leader Andrew Robertson performed a typical knee-jerk-reaction and posted an article stating that homophobia will not be tolerated in (the) party. This upset me, if I want to poke fun at Mandy for being gay then that’s my business, fascists. I can understand that the higher echelons of the party should be held to standards of political correctness, but to force ordinary members to adhere to standards of political correctness while not representing the party, when freedom of speech is a core value of the party, just stinks of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?
Another freedom of speech issue is that prominent members support the Obscene Publications Act and the new ban on cartoon pornography. If perverts want to write stories of sexual mutilation and murder, even if they include sex acts on babies, then this should be none of my business. I’d like to draw a lesbian stick-girl orgy set in a college, but these oppressive laws prevent me from exercising this freedom.
You'd better clear your cache just in case!
Finally, and this is the worst problem with PPUK, they have removed all political discussion from the public section of the forums, which means you have to pay your membership fee to express an opinion on policies. This is a step too far, it is a thinly disguised money grabbing policy which only alienates the public and stifles political debate. So much for a new, revolutionary, Internet based party for the people.
I seriously hope that someone forms a new and inclusive party, which actually practices the policies it preaches. Until that time I guess I’ll be voting Liberal Democrats.
Freedom of speach is a right, only if it does not impinge in smothers freedoms. Such as expression, life, or indeed speech.
I agree. I think that freedom of speech shouldn’t include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre or conspiracy to commit serious crime. Conspiracy laws should cover inciting violence. I don’t agree with laws against hate speech or obscene words and images though, nobody has a fundamental right not to be offended or disgusted.
As a member of the german Pirate Party I still agree with you.
Well, imo you actually SHOULD join the PPUK then, to bring them to the correct direction..
Gaz, I think it was you that caused the fuss in the IRC when the policy of the ‘closed political discussion’ happened. I can understand somewhat your issue, but the reasoning is simple.
It keeps the trolls down, and keeps the discussion to those serious about the party, and the goals of the party. It stops policy discussion deteriorating into a 4chan-esque farce, where sock-puppets parrot unsubstantiated crap to get their way. Basically, it keeps the discussion focused, and verified.
It also resonates strongly with the whole ‘transparency’ thing. Every person on there has their identity known. You know who says what, so people are left accountable for their views. What you want is a ‘voice-from-the-crowd’ area, where policies can be dropped in anonymously.
There’s also the simple fact that politics costs money. It’s not free to run a candidate. You think, however, that even a modest infusion of capital is too much, but you are really interested in, and want to have an active part in the issues? Why is your voice, some random guy that won’t even support the party with a tenner, a fraction of the amount needed to register a single candidate, more important to the party than any one else who has supported the party financially, enabling it to do what it is intended. And despite what you might think, political views and opinions aren’t exactly rare, everyone has em. What you want is basically an anarchical mess, where nothing can get done, because the latest kid with half a dozen email addresses, wants his stupid idea taken as policy.
If your idea is so great, and so important to the party (and in your mind, your opinions are as important to the party, as the funds actually are) why not put your money where your mouth is.
And good luck getting your opinions listened to in the LibDems, or tories or NuLab, even as a paying member.
1> You’re a bit late.
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=611
PPUK already running a poll on whether it should move it back. So you concern for this thread is un warranted.
2> Homophobic topic was born our of a leadership dispute concerning openly promoting policies where the words had not been accurately defend. It had nothing really to do with Mandy. It was just a fluff peace he used to try and get his point across.
3> The support the Obscene Publications Act and the new ban on cartoon pornography. Was also misinterpreted by you.
a> The opinion peace high lights the possible negative effects if we do not word the policy correctly. IT states that it could be used against us by copyright lobbyists if a case were the ownership of indecencies material is found.
b> You straw manned the argument by stating that you would be imprisoned for your little cartoon. Well no, PPUK is fighting for you to have that right. However there is a little common since involved here. If you drew a realistic image, would that cross the line? Hentia and other material are already illegal and the law is already in place but has no real bit to it since no one enforces it. (only extreme cases are enforced, such as the circulation of indecent images of children)
4> The final point is directed at you. You talk about opening the doors of freedom of speech however you seem to be filtering posts/comments on your blog.
Gaz, you have a very valid point.
And Andrew, I think you’re being a tad offensive (although perhaps unintentionally). Comparing any free-ish forum to 4chan is more than just a tiny overreaction (as has been mentioned over and over again on the PPUK forum). Of course it makes sense to open important policy *voting* to party members-only, however, the *discussion* needs to be left open to any forum member. If someone then creates multiple accounts and posts silly requests, hopefully the voting members will still vote for the reasonable thing. Or conversely, if a non-member makes a reasonable point, that might actually change the members’ opinions, giving non-members a tiny measure of power in the decision-making process. It will mean more work for the moderators, but it would be worth it.
I would post this argument on the PPUK forum, but I’m not sure if anyone there will listen to my opinions anymore. I am not a paying member. Why? Because I am not a British voter (I live in the UK, but I still want to be able to vote for the Pirate Party in my native country, Sweden), and thus, the law forbids me to make a monetary contribution to a British political party (or it forbids the PPUK to accept my money, I can’t remember, either way, my becoming a member is illegal). Perhaps that makes my opinion less valuable. It’s sad, though, because I have still invested a lot of time in making the party known, I was there during the start-up and now, suddenly, I barely have a voice. (Yeah, I’m ever so slightly bitter over this … :-/ )
I recall from early discussions about membership fees that there were reasonable arguments for not making membership free (running a party in the UK costs money whereas in eg. Sweden you can make it with almost nothing; free membership would attract suspicion and claims of lack of seriousness, etc.), so I’m not complaining about the fact that one needs to pay to become a member. I’d gladly pay, but I still believe that non-members should have more of a chance to get their opinions through.
(Besides, supporting the Obscene Publications Act is simply ridiculous. I’d gladly pay my way into the party just to fight for the removal of that support.)
With apologies for a somewhat ranty post,
Erika Nilsson
@Andrew, those reasons you use are justifications and not actual reasons for closing off the debate. Restrictive exclusionary policies should come as a last resort to trolling and sock puppeteering, not as a precautionary measure.
I don’t even see how an army of sock puppets could get their way by sheer volume, that just doesn’t make sense to me. The weight of an argument depends on the validity of its claims, which require time spent developing them. Sock puppets shouting “me too” can safely be ignored.
Your 4chan argument is flawed too, on a web forum people have a profile and a post count, it’s not usenet or an anonymous BBS. Everyone starts off with a reputation inversely proportional to their anonymity and this increases as they contribute. I see no reason why people should have their identities compromised in order to be trusted, if people want to hide behind pseudonyms then they should be able to.
It’s not that I’m not willing to part with a tenner, I’m neither tight fisted nor poor. The problem is that I don’t want to pay ten quid to join some elite club who think that paying a tenner buys them privileged status. The way I see it becoming a member gives you decision making responsibilities which enable you to work for the electorate, not the power to dictate to them. FYI I have much more to contribute than political opinion, and I am putting my money exactly where my mouth is: elsewhere.
@johnathan
1) I posted that poll, it was ignored.
2) The argument is against free speech, the blog post by Andrew Robinson was pro-censorship for political correctness. I still think it’s hypocritical to be for freedom of speech yet against homophobic remarks (or even hate speech).
3)
a) rancidpunk ranted in favour of the Obscene Publications Act and essentially called for book burning, read his post.
b) The drawing was a joke and I still think it’s funny. Since you asked for my opinion I think that child pornography is a privacy issue, cartoon child porn which doesn’t look like any particular child should be allowed because art should not be censored. It crosses the line when it becomes a drawing of some particular child, not when it turns someone on.
4) I’ve been travelling all afternoon so didn’t approve the comments until I got back. The only filtered posts here are spam, the reason for needing approval for first time posters is because I get a lot of spam.
@Erika, I think it’s a shame that your contribution isn’t recognised. IMO active participants are worth more than ten pounds, the Internet knows no boundaries when it comes to campaigning and raising awareness. Active supporters are way more important than inactive members.
@Gaz – offtopic re spam filtering: Try the plugin WP-SpamFree. No, I am not the developer. The thing has taken me from ~20 spam comments per day to maybe one a month, though (plus it doesn’t use captchas, which is great since I vehemently dislike them).
Cool thanks Erika, I’ll try that
Ah, I see your mailing list post now Halan.. causing trouble eh?
@Gaz
“The argument is against free speech, the blog post by Andrew Robinson was pro-censorship for political correctness. I still think it’s hypocritical to be for freedom of speech yet against homophobic remarks (or even hate speech).”
This is crazy and the fault in reasoning is easy to demonstrate. We all have human rights, to movement, religion, freedom of speech etc. However the extent of these rights is also governed by other peoples rights – your freedom of movement to swing your fist stops at the next mans face. Likewise, your right to say whatever you want stops when what you say is derogatory and prejudiced against others.
“Likewise, your right to say whatever you want stops when what you say is derogatory and prejudiced against others.”
@ED, that isn’t freedom of speech, that’s blatant censorship and you’re about as wrong as you possibly could be.
Why shouldn’t someone be able to say something derogatory or prejudiced? The only reason I can imagine is because it’s offensive, and what makes something offensive? Personal choice; you can choose to be offended about anything. Are you staring at my girlfriend?
Nobody has a right to not be offended, that’s not how freedom works. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is how it works.