Feeling safe? Defending hate speech for artists

all_hi_res_finalMy Friday 26 January comment for www.artreview.com

Only a few days after they had been published to support the women’s march day, artist Paul Chan’s publishing house Badlands Unlimited found that their anti-Trump protest posters had been pulled from Facebook and Instagram. The four posters aren’t exactly polite: ‘GOD HATES TRUMP’ reads one, along with ‘FAGS HATE TRUMP’, ‘TRUMP HATES GOD’, and, not forgetting everyone’s most-loathed art collector, ‘GOD HATES IVANKA’.

Designing protest posters has become a raucous aspect of artists’ involvement in an increasingly polarised political culture, with everyone from Wolfgang Tillmans to Shepard Fairey using the power of social media and cheap printing to get their message out. And the Badlands posters are particularly in-you-face examples of the new protest poster. The designs are, to an extent, ironic, since they mimic the infamous ‘GOD HATES FAGS’ posters put out by campaigners of the Christian fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, in Kansas, known for their picketing of funerals, gay rallies and other public events.

The trouble is that Facebook, and the Facebook-owned Instagram, don’t really get the idea of irony. Last Friday, Facebook sent a notice to Badlands stating the images did not meet ‘community standards’ and were being removed. On Saturday afternoon, Instagram sent a notice stating a similar offense: the images do not ‘follow community guidelines’.

In response to the removal of the images, Badlands protests that:

‘…the legal threshold for what constitutes “community standards” are too low and vague, and intentionally so. The pretense of protecting a community is what typically justifies the stifling of dissent and other forms of “other-mindedness” in images and texts. It is Badlands’s opinion that the Trump administration represents a clear and present danger to Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, straight, LGBTQ, and other community standards everywhere in the US.’

Is declaring that ‘fags hate trump’ itself hate-speech? And would supporters of donald trump feel ‘unsafe’?

Whatever you think about the posters, Facebook and Instagram’s response is no doubt censorship. But the trouble with Badlands’ position is that in arguing over whether Facebook and Instagram are being disingenuous in invoking ‘community standards’, it doesn’t challenge the logic of those standards. Facebook’s community standards are about making sure that ‘people feel safe’ when on their platforms. And when one gets down to the section on hate speech, it’s clear that Facebook bends over backwards to ban speech which attacks people for their ‘race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender or gender identity, or serious disabilities or diseases’. What Facebook is more coy about is what discretion it exercises beyond that – is declaring that ‘FAGS HATE TRUMP’ itself hate-speech? And would supporters of Donald Trump feel ‘unsafe’?

Whether someone else ‘feels safe’, is a pretty loose, catch-all criterion for curtailing free speech. Unfortunately, from ‘safe spaces’ on campus to ‘trigger warnings’ to the discourse around ‘microagressions’, it’s often been liberal and left-winger campaigners who have called for the speech of others to be suppressed. And social media platforms have become quick to intervene in excluding offensive speech and speakers from their platforms, regardless of their political persuasion (in the name of impartiality, of course). For example, the banning by Twitter of obnoxious alt-right comment-imbecile Milo Yiannopoulos last summer, allegedly for directing his followers to insult and harass actress Lesley Jones, quickly turned him into a free speech martyr. Now, Yiannopoulos is touring US college campuses, with protesters at his events often forcing the cancellation of his talks. Is that legitimate protest, harassment or censorship?

Unfortunately, opportunist demagogues like Milo often get to claim the torch of free speech, and, paradoxically, get to play the victim. The trouble is the logic and language of ‘feeling safe’, of not being victimised, means that anyone’s free speech quickly becomes someone else’s hate speech. Maybe Badlands’ anti-Trump posters are hateful. But maybe free speech isn’t always pleasant, polite, innocuous, innocent or unthreatening. And that means that defending one’s own freedom of speech means defending it for others, however disagreeable. But it also means that ‘feeling safe’ can’t be the ‘trump’-card to play against others, since that card will, sooner or later, be played against you.

Public Vs.Private

My column for the January-February 2016 issue of ArtReview, now online. Read it here (requires free registration to artreview.com)

‘The purpose of the public museum is to ensure the long-term availability and display of art.’ With his first sentence, Chris Dercon, soon-to-be-former director of Tate Modern, had already lost the argument. Back in June last year, Dercon gave a speech as part of a symposium made up of international art-museum big-cheeses, at the private Louis Vuitton Foundation, to consider such burning questions as ‘What are the challenges facing public and private museum collections today?’, ‘Who makes art history now?’…

The End of Human Experience

My column for the summer issue of ArtReview, now online. Read it here

“What this seems to mean for contemporary artists is a peculiar approach to seeing humanity: either as just one more ‘thing’ among others – resulting in a fascination with other types of nonhuman entity out there – or as something already long dead and vanished, seen from some (virtual) future perspective in the form of its archaeological record. And you don’t have to look too far at the moment to see how artists and the artworld are lapping up this new zeitgeist…”

‘Phantom Limbs’ at Pilar Corrias

My review of ‘Phantom Limbs’ at Pilar Corrias, London, on Art Agenda. Read it here

“People who have lost arms or legs often report experiencing a “phantom limb”—the sense that the limb is still there, or that they can still move or feel it. It’s a good metaphor, too, for current post-internet art debates concerning the shifting relationship of real to virtual, digital to material.“Phantom Limbs,” Pilar Corrias’s smarter-than-most summer show, does a concise job of mapping the various poles of this cultural and theoretical inquiry…”

Subjects v Objects

JJ Charlesworth & James Heartfield

First published in Art Monthly, March 2014

Recently, objects seem to have taken on a life of their own. This man thinks that another slice of cake will make him happy. That woman thinks that a better school will get her son good qualifications. This man has thousands of girlfriends stored on his hard drive. This girl thinks that a Hollister top will make people like her. Goods fly off the shelves. Exports boost Britain.

Continue reading “Subjects v Objects”

How not to make public art

My column on the latest sculpture commissions for Trafalgar Square’s Fourth Plinth on ArtReview.com. Read it here

“The Fourth Plinth committee appear to imagine the public as a strange fusion of bored teenager and angry mob; restless, distracted, excited by bold shapes and colours and thoughtless political truisms about the state of the world.”

Review: Hannah Sawtell at Vilma Gold, London

My discussion of Hannah Sawtell’s show RE PETITIONER IN ZERO TIME for Art-Agenda

“The building, superimposed on the larger sequence of the pre/post-historic wasteland, is of a factory of sorts, a place for the production of political ideology, at a time when working people’s actions had a direct effect on the world. The building stands in for the people who produce things, rather than for the desert of use(r)less commodities…”

read more…