 |
(Virtual) Sidewalks and The Public Discourse |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Is there any truth left in the myth about the sidewalk as a scene for freedom of speech? Do we intentionally design our virtual environment with no sidewalks while simultaneously using the law to mute the sidewalks encounters?
A romantic vision of the sidewalks was portrayed in scholarly writing about the freedom of speech. The sidewalk was described as a scene for spontaneous, unplanned, instinctive encounters with diverse people whom otherwise you would not engage in a conversation with. In this writing, people meet at the sidewalk people with views and opinions often polar to their own and engage in an open and genuine dialogue and exchange of thoughts. This is the freedom of speech in its glory. Professor Cass Sunstein warned us of losing this kind of sidewalk’s dialogue in Cyberspace. In a virtual environment, people might tend to gather with like-minded people. The design of the virtual space can limit spontaneous and unplanned encounters. Interactions might be channeled through personalized controlled experiences. In a virtually designed space there are no sidewalks. You can refrain from unplanned encounters.
An experience I had today made me stop and think about how we practically stifle the sidewalks’ interactions. The event happened in “meat world” but may teach us also a lesson when we design our new virtual space. Apparently, in our physical streets the police uses it power to prevent the kind of interactions the sidewalk offers .
I wish you could meet Anita. One of these friendly people I met in the sidewalks of New Haven who enriched my life. She is a vivid and friendly person which unlucky fate turned to an homeless. Always with a smile, she addresses passersby. This is how I happened to meet her at first place. As time passed I learned to know more about her life and family, about her unfortunate luck which led her to wander in the streets. Sometimes I see her counting the coins people gave her and which may enable her to go to the shelter in a cold winter night (and believe me, there were plenty of such freezing nights even in my always heated apartment in New Haven). She never bothered anyone or hassled with people. Politely she offered her companionship, but never forced her company. We are no different. Just as I try to engage people in conversations while I seek company in the “Starbucks designed community coffee shop” where I sit, so does she in the sidewalk of New Haven. But unlike me, today she was forced to mute. The policeman who patrols our neighborhood demanded that she would not address people whom she does not know. After warning her once, the policeman observed her starting a conversation with a passerby and approached her demanding that she stop the conversation. To the surprised passerby he explained that Anita has a reputation of harassing people. Then he fined Anita with a 77$ fine for “public disturbance”.
Anita came to talk with me about it . She could not enter the coffee shop (since the manager explained to her few times in the past that she is not welcomed) so she signaled to me from the street. When I came out she started crying. She could not bear the humiliation that she, who made friends with plenty of students in our university town, was declared a “public disturbance”. In the city where she grew up, now she is forced not to initiate a conversation. She became a persona non grata in her hometown while the “community” assembles in the newly built coffee shop.
When she left, my mind was distracted. I thought: what happened to the freedom of speech that a citizen can not initiate a spontaneous conversation on the sidewalk? Is there any connection between such an incident and the harsh measures taken against innocent protesters who used the streets toady to cry their anti-war messages? Is the only possibility left for a spontaneous, unplanned encounter is between consumers in a “community coffee shop” where the private owner drive away unwelcome guests?
Freedom of speech with no meaningful place to exercise it is a useless right. In the virtual environment peculiar rules as trespass to chattels are used to exclude speakers from the place of debate. These rules and others enable the “space owner” to design the discourse to fit his economic interests. In the streets of New Haven, an outrages ordinance against “public disturbance” excludes an innocent and friendly citizen from engaging in a conversation on the sidewalk. This is not the freedom of speech we fight for. We shall stop the misuse of the law to block the spontaneous and open discourse. Remember the importance of the street and sidewalks to the freedom of speech. Don’t silent this discourse!
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Article Rating |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|