Hallam v the State, and free speech. The Just Stop Oil desecrations are calling to our humanity

Just Stop Oil and the imprisonment of Roger Hallam and others has provoked an outcry, on both sides of the dispute. And the heightened emotions have made me think. What's going on here? What is at stake?
I suspect that what’s being missed is something fundamental to human society and how we participate in a wider environment, and that can be discerned more fully by considering the true nature of freedom of speech.
I draw on a talk given by Joseph Milne at the excellent Temenos Academy. The archive of talks can be found here - www.temenosaca...
The approach is to consider what freedom of speech meant to our ancestors, so as to cast a light on the present. Aristotle's thoughts in the Politics is key, as speech for him is what makes human society - speech understood as a sharing the wider rationality and intelligence of the animate cosmos.
Justice, then, is an exercise in the bonds of friendship, which is very different from an exercise in rights and the will to power.
The limits of social contract theories, the mainstay of modern understandings, are on display. And what we need to recover are other ways of speaking freely - modes of dialogue and discourse that aren't primarily about proposition or facts, but commitments, relationships, devotions, celebrations.

[@iankclark]

Thank you for this call to truly free speech.

[@pmatti01]

I thought you presented an intelligent desciption of the establishment view on these protests. But I still feel that this particular new law and how it has been applied, particularly in regards to Roger Hallam, signals a dangerous increase in authoritarianism. In Hallams case, to be sentenced to 5 years for acting in an advisory role, not actually participating in the protest and not even involved in the planning stage, this seems to be a gross miscarriage of justice. One wonders to what extent can this law reach in order to suppress non-violent civil disobedience. I accept the argument that just stop oil went too far and caused way to much disruption to the puplic, doing their cause no good at all by alienating themselves from the puplic. But the reach of these new laws is bringing us ever closer to the likes of China and other such highly controlled societies.

[@PlatosPodcasts]

I can see the case for that, yes, and wonder if it's a product of the uncoupling of law from good in the social contract tradeoff of rights etc.

[@tonywozere909]

The Henry 8th powers brought in recently by Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to increase police powers to criminalise protest? Liberty now are trying to influence the new government to overturn them. We'll see how that goes. Daniel Boffey of The Guardian covers these issues more thoroughly than most. As for JSO action on Stonehenge (cnd chalked up Ban the Bomb on them in the 60s) , Mona Lisa, Magna Carta, I understand it as a way of calling the imagination to see the planet with the same sacred understanding we accept these other objects as having. Ultimately not harming them is a great marketing strategy and art, even, asking that there should be mutual respect. When it comes to blocking motorways, then they're just idiots, like when say the IRA blow up pubs instead of state institutions. I did read Hallam's summary of his trial but Judge Hehir did come across as a bit unhinged.

[@elastotec173]

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to damage property owned by others

[@LeonieMart]

Thankyou Mark for this timely and generous unfolding of the present linguistic sclerosis we seem to be mired in🙏🏼

[@philiphewett2803]

very thoughtful and thought provoking - thank you

[@mal6232]

Perfectly free to express their opinions just not by causing untold misery on thousands of others....freedom of speech my rrse.

[@craiga2002]

American saying - Your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's nose begins. If Just Stop Oil busts a nose, there is no complaining when they get a black eye!

[@villhelm]

Free speech has nothing to do with stopping people going about their lawful business or destroying property.

[@thethomasraymond]

That was so beautiful to hear you read those Blake proverbs. I also loved the reminder that freedom of speech is a privilege and we are want to speak well by that gratitude. Such an important reminder. This video especially a necessary sane voice of a vision of how we can treat our own voices and aspirations. I wish every ear could hear your voice right now Mark. Finding myself looking at the books on your shelf I would love to hear a list of book recommendations of yours in a video.

[@jamescastro2037]

Freedom of speech will have us reading words such as William Blake. And giving credit to his thoughts. Freedom of thought would have us reading the environment of words seeing that William Blake is Will I am B lake. He's a big pond erer. Thought constructs the word and speech repeats the word.

[@tywodcynffig]

Your analysis of the motivations and aims of the protestors is remarkably reactionary and blinkered, and sadly completely misses the point. Describing their actions as "desecration" is also a wild overreaction, and potentially a dangerous one when we consider that the protestors have been subject to repeated acts of violence from members of the public, egged on by the faux-outrage of the media commentariat. The protests simply draw attention to the fact that if we truly claim to value these "sacred" works of art, then we should get comfortable with the idea of losing them, because that's what will happen if the scientists are correct, and we, as a society, fail to reckon with the science. It's not easy to listen to the scientists and truly receive and internalise their message. Hallam and the others have done that, and they are living in a new reality, and acting accordingly. If we ignore science, and the scientific method, we are also falsifying the dream of a civilization founded on reason and dialogue. I was moved to comment as your sneering at Just Stop Oil surprised me, I was expecting something more insightful from you. But there we go. You should read Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy by the way, he will help you get some depth to your musings on the relation between speech and revolution (which is what you are talking about, though you don't seem to realise it).

[@PlatosPodcasts]

I understand the logic of the protests and appreciate you laying it out.

[@svepreostalo2265]

and what if your corrupted "97% scientist" are not right? What then? The fundamental flow that will greatly contribute to collapse of Western civilization is that feeling of supremacy and entitlement we are right no matter what. It is so insulting to the rest of humanity, but we have that blind spot and we simple can not see our own character flows. The nature always balancing all things they are. The only thing that has intrisic value in Kosmos know to us, and humanity poses is knowledge, so I am suggest try to learn about complexity of climate and what is real effect of using fossil fules, and don't be a victim of climate histeria, controled by opportunists who as always get ever more rich while playing human emotions.

[@SisypheanRoller]

I can understand why the protesters might consider that their actions follow from what they know to be true, but it doesn't change the fact that their protests are incredibly brazen and naive in the expectations of what they would accomplish. You can get sympathy from those in these circles who are willing to step back from their initial reactions, but the nuance will always be lost by the time it is reported in news and the average news consumer makes the quick association between climate activism and plain terrorism and desecration. Even if I were to set that aside, I fail to see in any way how destroying objects of value to others is a sane way to effect the kind of change they desire. It speaks to me of a mind that has given up on civilized means of social change, and is willing to do anything to get its way. That way leads to questionable company; company I wouldn't wish to keep.

[@hattmarvey1989]

"If the scientists are correct"... The only indicators of a climate problem are a handful of very dubious computer models, and "massaged" data. The "97% of scientists" has been well-and-truly proved to be false. Mann's "hockey stick" has been shown to be based on inaccurate statistics and missing "warm period" data (and he is now a multi-millionaire - who is paying him?). More and more top climate scientists are saying that the tiny increase in CO2 is a good thing - without it we were facing another extinction event due to a lack of CO2 (plants start to die if it drops below 180ppm, and we were at 220ppm until recently). It is also unknown what proportion of the tiny rise in CO2 levels comes from fossil fuels and how much is natural. Do not base all your beliefs on the MSM - they have political motives. There are many presentations available by top scientists, Tom Nelson is a good place to start.