The constitution was drafted in almost 20 years ago, in a completly different set of circumstances. Accession to the EU was not on anyone’s minds (nor did the EU exist in its today’s form), the understanding and content of several human rights provisions have been altered, etc. The world around us has changed, and Estonia has changed even more dramatically.

The Estonian constitution has been for me, and I suspect for most Estonians, the most fundamental basis for the existence of the Estonian state. I cannot really remember the first time I read it, but it was during school, and I think it was one of the things that made me decide to study law, instead of anything else. The constitution sets out clearly and powerfully why we have the state and what it does. I was most impressed with the Bill of Rights section, which I thought was a brilliant thing to have. Indeed, I was not and am still not so much interested in the institutions the constitution created, but rather the principles it provides.

Estonia is a part of the EU and this is not reflected well in the constitution. The constitution suffered its heaviest blow with the 2004 Amendment Act and its subsequent interpretation by the Estonian Supreme Court. Today, it is no longer clear to which extent the constitution applies in case it is in conflict with an EU legal act. A new Constitution should state more clearly and confidently the basis according to which Estonia belongs to the EU, and not only that, but the way it operates in today’s multilevel governance framework. This not only applies to the EU level, but also to the relationship between the state level and local governments. The latter subject (i.e. local government functions and their financing) have been one of the most contentious issues in Estonian politics for a long time. Therefore my first proposal would be to describe in a chapter the role of the Estonian state in this framework. The current constitution largely ignores the fact that governance is no longer limited to a single state entity, but is much larger concept.

The Bill of Rights needs updating. There have been many changes in recent decades in the understanding and development of human rights, including for example data protection rights. The family rights section should also be expanded to be more clearly inclusive of all types of relationships. For example, although the current constitution does not prohibit same-sex marriages, these relationships should be more clearly protected. A good, but not perfect, example could be found in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The provisions relating to the nation state should be reviewed. The constitution contradicts itself by providing those who are of Estonian nationality preferential treatment. The preservation of the Estonian nation in the preamble is one of the things that should go, and better protection be afforded to minorities. Multiple citizenship should be clarified in the constitution, the current blanket ban is unfair and dumb. The constitution would provide an opportunity for a truly new societal agreement to involve in the governance of the state also those who have been left out so far (ethnic Russians and other marginalised minorities) and move Estonia forward in the democratic path.

A few other things that I would also rather see changed:

1. Abolish compulsory military service. It has no place in today’s society: it serves no legitimate defence need and is burdensome for the individuals from the liberty perspective as well as the society as a whole.

2. Add innovative  things that pave the way for success, for example the right to access to Internet and the principle of Open Data.

The rules that govern us determine where we go as a society. I think there should be more discussion in Estonia on the most fundamental of these rules, especially on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Estonian constitution next year. Let’s face it: the current constitution and life in Estonia today have grown apart and need to be re-aligned. Otherwise we will see in future more and more incredible feats of teleological interpretation, which interpret a clause in the constitution to say the exact opposite of its text and that is not good.

I do not advocate shifting the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the society on the whole. It is clear that those individuals who were proven to commit a specific act deserve to be punished according to the law. However, in order to prevent such acts in the future, it is important to look at and analyse the causes of these events. The society should also look into things that are wrong and try to remedy these. This way, the horrific events could be turned into possibilities to make a better society. This does not mean that we somehow reward the criminals, because the motivation should not be fear of someone doing something similar again, but to eliminate the root causes of these actions.

Some people (especially those who like to see things in black and white terms) think that there are people who are evil and that is that. Those ‘evil’ people need to be tracked down and put to prison or even killed. That is not the way I look at things. I think people and life in general is much more complex. Goodness and evil are subjective, relative terms that could, at best, relate to specific actions in a specific ethical or moral framework, but not really to the whole of a person.

Faced with complex set of issues that shock or frighten, people tend to seek for strong leaders with simple, harsh measures. However, I think it is best to analyse the situation and also look at the root causes of these criminal events. Trying to ignore problems will not make them go away.

Unfortunately it is not possible to rely only on peasant common sense when thwarting hostile attacks to influence us, because big states use billions for this war without frontiers. Estonia needs an immune system. Our national psychological defence must be constructed to a wide and strong base. Then the external influences and crises will not break our internal connections, society and the state as a whole during bad times.  (my translation)

No, this is not a quote from ’1984′. It is from the speech made on the occasion of the 92nd birthday of the Republic of Estonia by the head of our defence forces. I have never understood why a high-ranking military person should be allowed to make these kind of political speeches at all, but using this kind of Orwellian rhetoric and nobody really caring about it is for me a dangerous sign. Connect it to the recent gaffe by our Minister of Defence who claimed that Estonian independence was a “triumph of national will” which seemed similar to the title of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will.

Nationalism is dangerous: the national unification function it provides threatens individual liberties, and discourages dissent or unpopular opinions, which in turn makes the society more closed. Do not get me wrong, I consider myself proud to be Estonian, but I do understand that the fact that I was born Estonian is random and does not mean that I am somehow better than someone who was born with a different nationality.

In my opinion our concept of nation state must be reconsidered. It is difficult to justify in today’s world the preservation of the Estonian nation as the primary reason for having the Republic of Estonia. We need a separation of the nation and the state.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

In the memokraat blog, the Short Guide to Catching Trolls (Lühike trolliküti käsiraamat ehk ettepanekud online diskussioonitehnoloogia arendamiseks Eestis) was posted discussing the issue of trolling at the reader comment sections of Estonian online news media sites. I briefly participated in the debate, but now will provide here an overview of some issues and questions that I have been thinking about since then.

1. Defining the troll. The Guide defines troll as someone who posts insulting comments in an online environment with the purpose of provoking others and disturb the discussion. What constitutes an insult, provocation or disturbance is subjective to a certain level and depends on the cultural and social background of a person. My comments for the Guide as posted in the comment thread could be considered trolling as at least some people thought that part of my arguments were arrogant (when I suggested that people who are so thin-skinned that they could not tolerate hostile commentary should not read it), the style I write and express my opinions is usually a little provocational and some people might think that it disturbed the discussion. Thus in a wide reading of the definition I am a troll and so is nearly anyone who does not conform to a certain subjective criteria defined by the owner of the site. The banning of such trolls as myself results in discussions that are perhaps non-insulting and uncontroversial, but at the same time also rather valueless in terms of expanding the scope of discussion and bringing in alternative views.

2. Defining the problems? The trollhunters claim that the problems are caused by the technology used for commenting at Estonian online news sites. They claim the technology used is to blame for the exclusion of certain other people (who in a bizarre twist are claimed to be unable to freely use their freedom of speech because they are afraid of others also using it but critically), that this leads to radicalisation of public opinion and intolerance and distorts public opinion. All these claims lack evidence, studies or any research: we are expected to accept these premises as self-evident, when they are actually not.

The biggest unsupported assumption the authors of the Guide make* is that the root of all evil is anonymous commenting, which may or may not be the case.

3. Freedom of speech in an online setting. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute and the exercise of it also requires responsibility for one’s opinions. However, for acts that bring criminal liability there already is a possibility to identify almost anyone online so the anonymity is only superficial. Thus it is possible at least in theory to make people accountable for their words also now.

50 years ago internet did not exist and therefore the human rights standards we have need to be adopted to the internet era. Certain principles remain the same, but the internet might change the content of certain rights subtantially, including freedom of speech. Offline analogies do not always work in the global unregulated internet with low barriers to entry.

4. Self-regulation is not always best when dealing with human rights issues. The trollhunters state that the least they want is state intervention or regulation. They propose a system of self-regulation, whereby the parties who control the commentary space make an agreement which is then adopted and implemented. In my mind it is dangerous when private entities make deals that involve limits to freedom of speech, because questions of accountability and transparency rise. I also believe that this might be even worse than state regulation, because the state is much more bound by international human rights obligations. So in cases that involve human rights I think it is preferential to have state regulation, rather than allow for private parties who control substantial public discussion space to make their own agreements to limit certain aspects of online activities. In many many spheres self-regulation is possible and works very well, but I am not sure if this is it.

—

In general terms there is another fundamental point why I think any regulation of online commentary space is not beneficial. Net neutrality means that content providers should not restrict specific parts of the internet depending on subjective criteria. The internet has flourished partly because of the freedom it provides and the abscence of walled gardens. What the trollhunters want to create is a walled garden, admittedly with very low walls, but still access to commenting would become more limited.

I also disagree that this discussion should be framed in terms of media freedom. Online commentaries do not constitute media or journalism in my opinion, it is a separate issue and therefore references to media and press freedom indexes do not really matter. The public debate in the matter has also included mostly people from the media sphere and not other areas who have framed the debate in their own terms.

Short rebuttal of the trollhunters critique of anonymity online:

1. The whistle-blower effect. The trollhunters claim that an anonymous tip option might be sufficient cannot be accepted because it is media-centric and would require an interested journalist to pursue the topic and lack of self-censorship in the media. Anonymous hints cannot replace anonymous commentary, they are different things. The trollhunters agree that certain levels of anonymity might be necessary for informing the public, I say it is essential.

2. Balance between insulting and constructive comments. This depends on the topic, but in most cases I would say based on my experience that insulting comments do not prevail over more insightful ones. Again, there are no studies made or statistical data available other than Delfi claiming that insulting comments are only a fraction of the total body of comments. Even if the majority of comments would bring nothing to the debate, is it worth not having the few that do?

3. Censorship. The trollhunters here refer to the right of newspaper editors to choose what to publish. The commentary space is not in my understanding part of the newspaper and can function without it. The fact that newspapers have always edited their stories have been due to physical lack of room in the paper and the need to provide a concentrated overview. The internet does not have these physical limits and there is nothing lost with adding to concentrated overviews and officially sanctioned opinions other stuff as well. The claims of this leading to mob censorship are speculation.

4. Impact of insulting anonymous comments. It is true that some people are more sensitive to criticism and insults than others, but again, there is no need to censor everyone because of this. Some views are controversial and people get offended. If I want to claim that there is no god, then this is offends people and I will be branded a troll. I believe that online commentary space must allow for expression of those less conformist views, which are not published by newspapers. I disagree that it is right to take away the freedom of expression from one group for the benefit of another.

5. Strength or importance of message. See above. I still refuse to accept the approach that it is somehow justified to prefer one group of people to another in terms of who may or may not express their views.

6. Vox populi, vox dei. I agree with the trollhunters that there needs to be no correlation between general public opinion and views expressed in comments, but I think it also depends on the topic. Likewise, I have seen no statistics which confirm that people believe that views expressed in online commentaries represent the general views in the society.

7. Video game violence argument. The idea is that people can insult others virtually so they will not do it offline. I think there is no correlation here, but no studies have been provided saying one thing or the other. The anger people have is in my own opinion a consequence, and not a cause of the processes in the society.

8. Moderated comments loses valuable discussion. This is subjective. If in some specialist finance related forum it works and likeminded people can express themselves better and feel good about it then fine. I do not think that discussion space for general public should work the same way (the danger to stifling of dissent and danger of conformism).

9. Too many comments to moderate. I think the notice and take-down system works pretty well.

10. Topic already discussed. Nothing to say here. Everything should be open for discussion.

11. Notice and take-down. Probably the system could be improved, I think it is disproportional to ban all anonymous comments due to imperfections of the notice and take-down system.

12. Turn to police. In case there is no real threat police should not be involved. If a person says to another that go jump off a cliff then this obviously is not a real threat. Again, in those cases where there is real threat police should be involved. It does not mean that all anonymous comments need to be banned because police does not do their work.

13. Economic factor. I am not sure if the commenting option is ecnomically beneficial or not, but of course that should not be the prevailing argument for or against limiting free speech online.

14. Freedom of speech is why comments are kept. Not a convincing argument, I agree. But I do think that once they have been introduced, stopping the ability to comment wold be problematic as it has almost become a service of general public interest.

15. Historical perspectives. There has been no time like this and therefore parallels with the past might or might not provide insight into dealing with the issue at hand.

* As pointed out by Daniel, I have put words in the mouths of the trollhunters that they think that anonymous commenting is the root of all evil. The trollhunter guide does not state this and it was an exaggeration on my part. However, I still think that the general tone of the Guide seems to connect anonymous expression with the existence of insulting and derogatory comments. I guess it would be fair to say that the authors consider it as a not an insignificant part of all evil

Trust

As I was feeding squirrels in the park, I noticed a small one that didn’t seem to trust me. While the others came close enough to eat out of my hand, he kept his distance. I threw a peanut his way. He edged up, grabbed it nervously, and ran off. Next time he must have felt less afraid, because he came a little closer. The safer he felt, the more he trusted me. Finally he sat right at my feet, as bold as any squirrel clamoring for the next peanut.

Trust is like that — it always seems to come down to trusting in yourself. Others can’t overcome fear for you; you have to do it on your own. It’s hard, because fear and doubt hold on tight. We are afraid of being rejected, of being hurt once more. So we keep a safe distance. We think separating ourselves from others will protect us, but that doesn’t work, either. It leaves us feeling alone and unloved.

Trusting yourself begins by recognizing that it’s okay to be afraid. Having fear is not the problem, because everyone feels anxious and insecure sometimes. The problem is not being honest enough to admit your fear. Whenever I accept my own doubt and insecurity, I’m more open to other people. The deeper I go into myself, the stronger I become, because I realize that my real self is much bigger than any fear.

In accepting yourself completely, trust becomes complete. There is no longer any separation between people, because there is no longer any separation inside. In the space where fear used to live, love is allowed to grow.

These wise words were written by Michael Jackson, of all people, in his book Dancing the Dream. I think there is a lot of truth to this. It has been difficult for me to trust people, and part of it is not being able to accept my own insecurity and fears.

I have always been a person who is prone to rooting for the underdog. I do not exactly know why it is so, but something about being second has always appealed to me. I kind of resent winning, even if it is me who wins, because winning means completion, achievement, closure. Failure on the other hand does not, it provides better opportunities to grow, to learn, to be better. Winning makes you complacent, arrogant and careless, whereas losing makes you work harder, faster, better.

In Estonia (and I guess in much of the Western world) winning and success are celebrated and revered. Nobody wants to be a loser, nobody cares about the guy who finished second. Being a winner/successful creates pressure to keep it that way, whereas people who are the underdogs can take it easier and cooler. The pressure to be successful in terms of the society (meaning mostly fame and money), is big and people sometimes take desparate measures to achieve those things. That is why I have prejudice towards those who are successful.

I love underdogs and try to be one myself (I do not actually try to not succeed, I just do not work especially hard to succeed). I do not value much financial or societal success, but rather try to live on my own terms, in my own world, as much as it is possible. It means that I give up a lot of things and probably miss out on many exciting and interesting things in life, but it also means that I am honest and true to myself. This means that I act through others, try to keep myself in the shadows as much as I can. This also means that I have made the conscious choice not to appear or talk to the media or be publicly associated with a specific matter, even if there is a possibility for this, this is why I have so far not published any articles in the popular press. It is not that I do not think that I have nothing to say or that what I say might be worthless, I am just not going to play the game as much as I can and try to make my own playground where it is my rules. It is better for me that way.

That is why I have this blog as well. It is on my terms, nobody but me decides how the blog looks like, or what I write here or whether I keep writing at all. I can write small insignificant snippets about things that I am excited about or I can write longer, more reflective pieces. Nor do I desire a big readership for my blog. It is a blog for an underdog.

He talked about many things, but I found most interesting the concept of having leadership without actually being in power. This applies not only to global politics, but also to societies and smaller groups. We live in an age where a single person with a great idea can lead others whereas the traditional power structures sometimes prove to be somewhat inflexible.

I agreed with his comments regarding the role of the UN and the importance of establishing genuine leadership there, and not allow it to be usurped for national interests (which is made possible by the existence of vetoes for certain permanent members of the Security Council). I truly feel that we live in a world that is changing, and it is changing for the better. Governments no longer can exercise full authority over their subjects.

There are several factors which make this change possible from the possibility of an individual uploading a video filmed on his or her mobile phone to YouTube to almost failed US politicians finding new courage and missions in fighting global warming (I refer to Al Gore and his slideshow and subsequent film which won an Oscar for best documentary). As prof Safty pointed out, the person does not necessarily have to be well-known person such as Al Gore, it can be anyone.

This is the kind of leadership I feel comfortable providing as well. I do not like power, I am afraid that a position of power might change me for the worse. I have never wanted power, but I do have ideas that I wish to be implemented.