How to foster productive and responsible debate | Ishan Bhabha

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Camille Martínez

Prevodilac: Visnja Bojovic Lektor: Ivana Korom

What if you own a hotel,

Šta bi bilo da imate hotel,

and one of the key principles in your mission statement

i da je jedan od glavnih principa vaše misije

is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally,

posvećenost tretiranju svih zaposlenih i klijenata podjenako,

including on the basis of gender and religion?

uključujući i ono na osnovu pola i religije?

And then a large group books an event at your space,

A onda jedna velika grupa zakaže događaj u vašem prostoru,

and when you look at the booking, you realize it's a religious group,

i kad pogledate rezervaciju, vi shvatite da je to religijska grupa,

and one of their key principles is that women should never leave the home

i da je jedan od njihovih glavnih principa taj da žene ne treba da izlaze iz kuće,

and should have no opportunities for professional development outside of it.

niti da treba da imaju mogućnosti za profesionalni razvoj van kuće.

What do you do?

Šta ćete uraditi?

Do you host the event and get criticized by some,

Da li ćete ugostiti ovaj događaj i izložiti se kritici jednih,

or refuse and get criticized by others?

ili odbiti i izložiti se kritici drugih?

In my work, I counsel organizations on how to create rules

Na svom poslu, ja savetujem organizacije o tome kako da kreiraju pravila

to navigate ideological disagreement and controversial speech,

tako da upravljaju ideološkim razlikama i kontroverznim govorom,

and I defend my clients,

i branim svoje klijente,

whether in court or from the government,

bilo to na sudu ili od vlade,

when their actions are challenged.

kada su njihovi postupci dovedeni u pitanje.

The structures I recommend

Sistemi koje ja preporučujem

recognize the real harms that can come from certain types of speech,

prepoznaju pravu štetu koja može proizići iz određenih vrsta govora,

but at the same time, seek to promote dialogue rather than shut it down.

ali u isto vreme, imaju za cilj da promovišu dijalog umesto da ga ugase.

The reason is that we need disagreement.

Razlog je to što je nama potrebno neslaganje.

Creativity and human progress

Kreativnost i uspeh ljudskih bića

depend on it.

zavise od njega.

While it may be often easier

Iako često može biti lakše

to speak with someone who agrees with everything you say,

pričati sa nekim ko se slaže sa svime što izgovorite,

it's more enlightening and oftentimes more satisfying

više je prosvetljujuće i često više zadovoljavajuće

to speak with someone who doesn't.

pričati sa nekim ko se ne slaže.

But disagreement and discord can have real and meaningful costs.

Ipak, neslaganje i nesloga mogu da imaju pravu i značajnu cenu.

Disagreement, particularly in the form of hateful speech,

Neslaganje, pogotovu ono u formi govora mržnje,

can lead to deep and lasting wounds and sometimes result in violence.

može da dovede do dubokih i trajnih rana, i da rezultuje nasiljem.

And in a world in which polarization and innovation are increasing

U svetu u kome se polarizacija i inovacija razvijaju

at seemingly exponential rates,

naizgled eksponencijalnom brzinom,

the need to create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement

potreba za formiranjem sistema za energične ali ne i nasilne nesuglasice

have never been more important.

nikad nije bila važnija.

The US Constitution's First Amendment might seem like a good place to start

Prvi amandman Ustava SAD deluje kao dobra polazna tačka

to go to look for answers.

u potrazi za odgovorima.

You, like I, may have often heard somebody say

I vi ste možda, kao i ja, često čuli nekoga kako kaže

that some form of a speech restriction, whether from an employer, a website,

da neka vrsta restrikcije govora, bilo od strane poslodavca, veb-sajta,

or even somebody else,

ili čak neke osobe,

"violates" the First Amendment.

"krši" Prvi amandman.

But in fact, the First Amendment usually has little if any relevance at all.

Međutim, Prvi amandman zapravo ima malo značaja, ako ga uopšte i ima.

The First Amendment only applies

Prvi amandman se primenjuje isključivo

when the government is seeking to suppress the speech of its citizens.

kada vlada traži način da ograniči govor svojih građana.

As a result, the First Amendment is by design a blunt instrument.

Kao rezultat, Prvi amandman je sam po sebi tupa alatka.

A narrow category of speech can be banned based on its content.

Vrlo uska kategorija govora se može zabraniti na osnovu njegovog sadržaja.

Almost everything else cannot.

Gotovo ništa ostalo ne može.

But the First Amendment has no relevance

Međutim, Prvi amandman nema nikakvog značaja

when what we're talking about is a private entity regulating speech.

kada je ono o čemu pričamo privatni entitet koji reguliše govor.

And that's a good thing,

I to je dobra stvar,

because it means private entities have at their disposal

zato što onda znači da privatni entiteti imaju na raspolaganju

a broad and flexible set of tools that don't prohibit speech,

širok i fleksibilan dijapazon alata koji ne zabranjuju govor,

but do make speakers aware of the consequences of their words.

ali čine govornike svesnim posledica njihovih reči.

Here are some examples.

Evo nekoliko primera.

When you go to university,

Kada idete na fakultet,

it's a time for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas.

to je vreme za slobodnu i neograničenu razmenu ideja.

But some ideas and the words used to express them

Međutim, neke ideje, kao i reči koje se koriste da ih izraze,

can cause discord,

mogu da izazovu neslogu,

whether it's an intentionally inflammatory event hosted by a student group

bilo da je u pitanju namerno provokativan događaj grupe studenata

or the exploration of a controversial issue in class.

ili istraživanje kontroverznog pitanja na času.

In order to protect both intellectual freedom

Da bi sačuvali intelektualnu slobodu

and their most vulnerable students,

i svoje najranjivije učenike,

some universities have formed teams that bring speaker and listener together,

neki univerziteti su formirali timove koji spajaju govornika i slušaoca,

free from the possibility of any sanction,

van svake mogućnosti sankcionisanja,

to hear each other's viewpoints.

da bi čuli gledišta jedno drugog.

Sometimes students don't want to meet,

Ponekad, studenti ne žele da se sastanu,

and that's fine.

i to je u redu.

But in other circumstances,

Ali u drugim okolnostima,

mediated exposure to an opposing view can result in acknowledgment,

posredovano izlaganje suprotnom gledištu može da rezultuje priznanjem,

recognition of unintended consequences

prepoznavanjem nenamernih posledica

and a broadening of perspectives.

i širenjem perspektiva.

Here's an example.

Evo vam primer.

On a college campus, a group of students supporting the Israelis

Na kampusu, jedna studentska grupa koja podržava Izraelce

and those supporting the Palestinians

i oni koji podržavaju Palestince

were constantly reporting each other

konstantno su se prijavljivali međusobno

for disrupting events, tearing down posters

za remećenje događaja, cepanje postera

and engaging in verbal confrontations.

i učestvovanje u verbalnim sukobima.

Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting

Prepoznavši da većina onoga što su studenti prijavljivali

did not violate the university's disciplinary code,

nije narušavala disciplinski kôd univerziteta,

the university invited both groups to sit down

univerzitet je pozvao obe grupe da sednu

in a so-called "restorative circle,"

u takozvani "restorativni krug",

where they could hear each other's viewpoints,

gde su mogli da čuju gledišta jedni drugih,

free from the possibility of sanction.

bez mogućnosti sankcionisanja.

After the meeting,

Posle sastanka,

the ideological disagreements between the groups

ideološka neslaganja između grupa

remained as stark as ever,

ostala su jednako oštra kao i uvek,

but the rancor between them significantly dissipated.

ali je mržnja između njih značajno opala.

Now, obviously, this doesn't always happen.

Naravno, ovo se očigledno ne dešava uvek.

But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system,

Ali odvajanjem reakcija na govor od disciplinskog sistema,

institutions of higher education have created a space

institucije visokog obrazovanja su stvorile prostor

for productive disagreement and a broadening of perspectives.

za produktivno neslaganje i širenje perspektiva.

We're all biased.

Svi smo mi pristrasni.

I don't mean that in a bad way.

Ne mislim u lošem smislu.

All of us are influenced, and rightly so,

Svi smo pod uticajem, i to s pravom,

by our family background, our education, our lived experience

svog porekla, obrazovanja, svog iskustva

and a million other things.

i milion drugih stvari.

Organizations, too, have influences,

Organizacije takođe imaju uticaj,

most importantly, the beliefs of their members,

ubeđenja njihovih članova, najviše od svega,

but also the laws under which they're governed

ali takođe i zakone pod kojima se njima upravlja

or the marketplace in which they compete.

ili tržište na kome se takmiče.

These influences can form a critical part of a corporate identity,

Ovi uticaji čine ključan deo korporativnog identiteta,

and they can be vital for attracting and retaining talent.

i mogu biti od vitalnog značaja za privlačenje i zadržavanje talenata.

But these "biases," as I'm calling them,

Ali ove "pristrasnosti", kako ih ja nazivam,

can also be a challenge,

mogu takođe biti izazov,

particularly when what we're talking about

pogotovu kada ono o čemu pričamo

is drawing lines for allowing some speech and not allowing others.

uključuje povlačenje granice za dozvolu određenih govora i zabranu ostalih.

The temptation to find speech harmful or disruptive

Iskušenje da zaključimo da je govor štetan ili uznemiravajući

simply because we disagree with it

prosto zato što se ne slažemo s njim

is real.

je stvarno.

But equally real is the harm that can come from certain types of expression.

Ali jednako stvarna je i šteta koja može proizići iz nekih načina izražavanja.

In this situation, third parties can help.

U ovoj situaciji neko treći može biti od pomoći.

Remember the hotel,

Sećate se hotela,

trying to decide whether or not to allow the religious group to host its event?

pokušaja da odlučite da li da dozvolite religijskoj grupi da održi svoj događaj?

Rather than having to make a complex, on-the-spot decision

Umesto da ima obavezu da donese kompleksnu, momentalnu odluku

about that group's identity and message,

koja se tiče identiteta i poruke te grupe,

the hotel could instead rely on a third party,

hotel bi mogao da se osloni na nekog trećeg,

say, for example,

na primer

the Southern Poverty Law Center,

Južni pravni centar za siromaštvo

which has a list of hate groups in the United States,

koji ima listu mrzačkih grupa u SAD,

or indeed even its own outside group of experts

ili čak sopstvenu spoljnu grupu stručnjaka

brought together from diverse backgrounds.

dovedenih sa različitih strana.

By relying on third parties

Oslanjanjem na treća lica

to draw lines outside the context of a particular event,

za povlačenje granice van konteksta nekog određenog događaja,

organizations can make content decisions

organizacije mogu da donose odluke o sadržaju,

without being accused of acting in self-interest or bias.

a da ne budu optužene za delovanje prema svojim interesima i sklonostima.

The line between facts and opinions is a hazy one.

Granica između činjenica i mišljenja prilično je maglovita.

The internet provides the opportunity to publish almost any position

Internet pruža priliku da objavimo bilo koji stav

on any topic under the sun.

na bilo koju temu na svetu.

And in some ways, that's a good thing.

I, na neki način, to je dobra stvar,

It allows for the expression of minority viewpoints

daje šansu za izražavanje gledišta manjina

and for holding those in power accountable.

i držanje onih na vrhu odgovornima.

But the ability to self-publish freely

Međutim, mogućnost samostalnog i slobodnog objavljivanja

means that unverified or even flat-out false statements

znači da neproverene ili čak očigledno netačne izjave

can quickly gain circulation and currency,

mogu brzo da steknu cirkulaciju i opticaj,

and that is very dangerous.

a to je vrlo opasno.

The decision to take down a post or ban a user is a tough one.

Odluka da se skine objava ili ukloni korisnik nije laka.

It certainly can be appropriate at times,

Ona svakako može biti ponekad prikladna,

but there are other tools available as well

ali ima i drugih, takođe dostupnih alata

to foster productive and yet responsible debate.

koji mogu da neguju produktivnu a odgovornu debatu.

Twitter has recently started labeling tweets

Tviter je skoro počeo sa označavanjem tvitova

as misleading, deceptive or containing unverified information.

kao zavaravajućih, obmanjujućih ili punih neproverenih informacija.

Rather than block access to those tweets,

Umesto da blokira pristup ovim tvitovima,

Twitter instead links to a source that contains more information

Tviter ih zapravo povezuje sa izvorom koji sadrži više informacija

about the claims made.

o iznetim tvrdnjama.

A good and timely example is its coronavirus page,

Dobar i pravovremen primer je njihova stranica o korona virusu,

which has up-to-the-minute information about the spread of the virus

koja ima najnovije informacije o širenju virusa

and what to do if you contract it.

i tome šta treba da radite ako se zarazite.

To me, this approach makes a ton of sense.

Po meni, ovaj pristup ima mnogo smisla.

Rather than shutting down dialogue,

Umesto da se dijalog uguši,

this brings more ideas, facts and context to the forum.

ovo donosi više ideja, činjenica i konteksta forumu.

And, if you know that your assertions are going to be held up

A ako znate da će vaše pretpostavke da se porede

against more authoritative sources,

sa merodavnijim izvorima,

it may create incentives

to može da stvori podsticaj

for more responsible speech in the first place.

za prvenstveno odgovorniji govor.

Let me end with a hard truth:

Dopustite mi da završim teškom istinom:

the structures I've described can foster productive debate

sistemi koje sam opisao mogu da neguju produktivnu debatu

while isolating truly harmful speech.

istovremeno izolujući zaista štetan govor.

But inevitably, some speech is going to fall in a grey area,

Međutim, neizbežno je da će poneki govor upasti u sivu zonu,

perhaps deeply offensive

možda duboko uvredljivog

but also with the potential to contribute to public debate.

ali takođe sa mogućnošću da doprinese javnoj debati.

In this situation,

U ovoj situaciji,

I think as a general matter,

mislim da kao opšta stvar,

the tie should go to allowing more rather than less speech.

ova granica treba da ide ka dozvoljavanju više, radije nego manje govora.

Here's why.

A evo i zašto.

For one, there's always the risk

Kao prvo, uvek postoji rizik

that an innovative or creative idea gets squelched

da inovativna ideja bude ugušena

because it seems unfamiliar or dangerous.

zato što deluje nepoznato ili opasno.

Almost by definition,

Skoro po definiciji,

innovative ideas challenge orthodoxies about how things should be.

inovativne ideje preispituju stavove o tome kako stvari treba da stoje.

So if an idea seems offensive or dangerous,

Tako da, ako ideja deluje uvredljivo ili opasno,

it could be because it is,

to može biti zato što ona to i jeste,

or it might simply be because we're scared of change.

ili može biti da je to prosto zato što se bojimo promene.

But let me suggest that even if speech has little to no value at all,

Ali dozvolite mi da predložim, čak i ako govor ima malo ili nimalo vrednosti,

that deficiency should be shown through open debate

taj nedostatak bi trebalo da se pokaže kroz otvorenu debatu

rather than suppression.

pre nego kroz suzbijanje.

To be very clear:

Da budem skroz jasan:

false speech can lead to devastating real-world harms,

lažan govor može da dovede do prave razarajuće štete,

from the burning of women accused of being witches in Europe

od spaljivanja žena optuženih da su veštice u Evropi

in the 15th century

u 15. veku,

to the lynching of African Americans in the American South,

do linčovanja Afroamerikanaca na američkom jugu,

to the Rwandan Genocide.

do genocida u Ruandi.

The idea that the remedy for false speech is more speech

Ideja da je lek za lažan govor još govora

isn't always true.

nije uvek tačna.

But I do think more often than not, more speech can help.

Ali ja svakako mislim da mnogo češće još govora može da pomogne.

A famous story from First Amendment case law shows why.

Poznata priča iz slučaja o Prvom amandmanu pokazuje zašto.

In 1977, a group of neo-Nazis wanted to stage a march

1977, grupa neonacista htela je da organizuje marš

through the leafy, peaceful suburb of Skokie, Illinois,

kroz razlistano, mirno predgrađe Skoki u Ilinoisu,

home to a significant number of Holocaust survivors.

domu značajnog broja ljudi koji su preživeli Holokaust.

The City Council immediately passed ordinances trying to block the Nazis,

Gradsko veće je odmah uvelo određene propise da bi zaustavilo naciste,

and the Nazis sued.

pa su ih nacisti tužili.

The case made it all the way up to the US Supreme Court

Ovaj slučaj je dospeo skroz do Vrhovnog suda SAD

and back down again.

i vratio se nazad.

The courts held that the neo-Nazis had the right to march,

Sudovi su bili mišljenja da su neonacisti imali pravo da marširaju,

and that they could display their swastikas

i da su mogli da prikazuju svoje svastike

and give their salutes while doing so.

i daju svoje pozdrave dok su marširali.

But when the day for the march came,

Međutim, kada je došao dan marša,

and after all that litigation,

posle celog tog spora,

just 20 neo-Nazis showed up

pojavilo se samo 20 neonacista

in front of the Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois,

ispred Gradske kuće u Čikagu, u Ilinoisu

and they were met by 2,000 counter-protesters

i dočekalo ih je 2000 anti-demonstranata

responding to the Nazis' messages of hate

odgovarajući nacističkim porukama mržnje

with ones of inclusion.

onima vezanim za inkluziju.

As the Chicago Tribune noted,

Kao što je "Chicago Tribune" primetio,

the Nazi march sputtered to an unspectacular end after 10 minutes.

nacistički marš se rasprsnuo sa neslavnim zavšetkom posle 10 minuta.

The violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and indeed around the world,

Nasilje u Šarlotsvilu u Virdžiniji, a i ono širom sveta,

shows this isn't always how these stories end.

pokazuje da ovo nije uvek način na koji se priče završavaju.

But to me, the Skokie story is a good one,

Ipak, za mene je priča o Skokiju dobra priča,

one that shows that the fallacy and moral bankruptcy of hateful speech

ona koja pokazuje da na zablude i moralni bankrot govora mržnje

can best be responded to not through suppression

može najbolje da se odgovori ne potiskivanjem,

but through the righteous power of countervailing good and noble ideas.

nego kroz pravdoljubivu silu protivteže dobrim i plemenitim idejama.

Thank you.

Hvala vam.