Stanford Federalist Society Tries To 'Cancel' Law Student For Satirical Email About Josh Hawley

from the free-speech-except-when-our-feels-are-hurt dept

Update: Perhaps due to all of the negative publicity this received, Stanford agreed to drop the investigation, and allow Wallace to go on with graduating. The original story remains below.

Ah, the Federalist Society. It makes a big deal about how "cancel culture" is supposedly a "threat to liberty" but apparently that doesn't apply when someone makes fun of them. Nicholas Wallace is a 3rd year law student at Stanford Law, and a few weeks after the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol, Wallace decided to highlight that some prominent FedSoc members who were seen to have cheered on the riot at the Capitol. So he created an obviously satirical email mocking the Federalist Society and the types of events it normally holds and sent it to a Stanford Law listserv. In this case, Wallace made an invite for a fake FedSoc event, parodying standard FedSoc events, entitled: "The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection" and claimed that the main speakers at the event would be insurrectionist fist bumper Senator Josh Hawley and still under indictment for felony fraud Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.

The invite goes on to note:

Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy.

I mean, it may not be the funniest bit of satire ever, but it's pretty clearly satire. But the good old Stanford chapter of the Federalist Society completely flipped out about it. The organization filed an actual complaint with Stanford Law. The complaint itself speaks extremely poorly to whatever it is they're teaching future lawyers at Stanford Law these days.

On January 25, 2021, at 8:38 a.m., Nicholas Wallace sent an email to Stanford Law School’s “Law Talk” email list-serv, where he impersonated the Stanford Federalist Society, a student group, through a false event flyer and attributed false and defamatory beliefs to persons he listed on the event flyer.

Do they not teach Stanford Law students how defamation works these days? Do they not teach what satire is? Or how the 1st Amendment works? I mean, you can just hear the whiny petulance of students who feel they should never ever be mocked.

Wallace defamed the student group, its officers, Senator Josh Hawley, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Wallace, impersonating the Stanford Federalist Society, wrote on the flyer that “Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event,” insinuating that the student group was encouraging and hosting a riot. He also wrote that Attorney General Paxton advocates for “overturn[ing] the results of a free and fair election” by “calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol.” And he wrote that Senator Hawley believes that violent insurrections are justified.

That's not how defamation works, guys. The complaint whines that many people believed the event was real, which seems to say a hell of a lot more about the kinds of events the Federalist Society normally puts on, than on anything Wallace did.

However, in the last few weeks, Stanford Law school has somehow decided to treat this obviously bad faith whining about an obvious satire as a legitimate complaint and has put Wallace's graduation in doubt, just to appease the censorial crybabies of the Stanford Federalist Society:

After the Federalist Society officer confirmed to Stanford administrators on May 22 that he wanted to proceed with his complaint, Stanford initiated an investigation into Wallace and put a hold on his diploma two weeks before his law school graduation. If the hold is not released, Wallace will not receive his degree as planned on June 12.

“The timing of all of this could not be worse,” said Wallace. “Instead of focusing on my finals and celebrating graduation with my classmates, I am navigating a confusing judicial process and trying to convince Stanford to lift the hold on my degree.”

As the link above notes, the organization FIRE, which protects free speech on campus, is calling on Stanford to drop this silly investigation, let Wallace graduate, and not to give in to this obviously bad faith attempt to punish someone for some light mockery.

Filed Under: cancel culture, federalist society, free speech, josh hawley, ken paxton, nicholas wallace, parody, satire
Companies: stanford

Lawyer Whose Main Claim To Fame Is Suing A News Org To Get It Shut Down, Now Complains About 'Cancel Culture'

from the oh-this-is-rich dept

As a bit of a reminder/disclaimer, Charles Harder was the main lawyer in the lawsuit against us, in which the plaintiff said directly that his intent was that we needed to be shut down. Of course, Harder's bigger claim to fame was his success in shutting down Gawker, thanks to a concerted effort by a billionaire who didn't like Gawker's reporting.

Harder has, in fact, relished his reputation for threatening and suing news organizations that publish information his clients dislike. Hell, he just published a whole book in which the title itself champions the fact that he killed off Gawker. Over the years, we've seen Harder threaten and/or sue plenty of media organizations over completely ridiculous things. He sued the New York Times over an opinion piece on behalf of Donald Trump's campaign (and lost), he helped a cryptocurrency company sue Forbes for an article about how the company was structured, he tried (and failed) to get multiple books about Donald Trump blocked from publication -- including suing over the book by niece Mary Trump and threatening a suit over Steve Bannon's book. He also threatened the New York Times over its big Harvey Weinstein expose.

In fact, nearly every aspect of Harder's claim to fame is built around his ability to threaten or sue media organizations into silence.

And the impact of his lawsuits has been very real. There have been stories about the Gawker Effect creating a real chill on investigative reporting, especially into malfeasance. And I've certainly spoken about the chilling effects of the lawsuit that was filed against me.

Given all of that, it's incredibly rich for Harder to now publish an op-ed decrying "cancel culture." And, yet, that's exactly what he's done. In a piece that originally appeared on InsideSources and is now popping up in actual newspaper op-eds, like the Jacksoville Journal-Courier, Harder argues that we need to stop trying to cancel people for speech. The whole thing would make me laugh if it didn't make me actually feel ill.

When it comes to the cancel culture debate, an important litmus test to apply when thinking about whether something—or someone—should be canceled is this: Does the punishment fit the crime? Vigorous debate, and even unpopular ideas, must be protected. Not only protected but encouraged. When people become scared to speak freely or are punished for expressing an unpopular view, American society inches closer to becoming homogenous, and where freedoms and diverse thoughts are suppressed.

Are you for real? Your career is highlighted by trying to shut entire media organizations down for articles that someone didn't like. Does the punishment fit the crime? Take a look in the mirror, Charles. Vigorous debate must be protected? Is the exception when a client pays you a lot of money to silence one side of that debate? Again, the only actual evidence we've seen of people being "too scared to speak freely" or "punished for expressing" certain views came as the result of lawsuits like yours that have chilled investigative reporting -- especially on the rich and powerful abusing their positions.

The Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to ensure for all Americans the right to free speech and free expression, without persecution. Everyone should feel free to exercise those rights without fear of backlash.

Really? Where do I send the bill for the hell you put me through?

But beyond hate speech and other terribly unacceptable speech, while I don’t condone disrespecting the flag or the national anthem, I strongly support people being allowed to speak their mind without fear of being canceled for it.

Then stop suing people and threatening others for their speech. Hell, your own history had me think twice before writing this very article, because I have no clue if you're going to sue me. You'd have no basis to do so, but that hasn't seemed to have stopped you in the past. That is the very chilling effect and "backlash" that you, yourself, created.

Harder's article goes on to discuss examples of what he believes is "cancel culture" -- conveniently leaving out much of the context and nuance behind them. This includes the now-infamous Harper's Letter, which we noted was not so much an essay on cancel culture, but about professional assholes seeking to hide behind a few legitimate cases of overreaction, and trying to avoid the social consequences of their speech. Incredibly, Harder's own description of the Harper's letter situation ends like this:

Naturally, the signatories caught flack for signing it.

Notice he didn't say they were "cancelled." They "caught flak." And, uh, just a few paragraphs earlier, you insisted that you supported and even encouraged 'vigorous debate.' And the Harper's Letter... created vigorous debate. Rather than embrace it, you're suggesting it's also an example of cancel culture. It seems like Harder is saying that he doesn't support cancel culture of some people, but is fine in other cases.

The end of Harder's piece is really quite something.

I believe that less cancellation, and more thoughtful consideration of context—plus appreciation for viewpoints we disagree with, particularly when communicated in a respectful, law-abiding way—would benefit all of us.

This is rich coming from you, who continue to sue media organizations and have just released a book proudly touting your own ability to shut down a media organization.

So applying the test to Colin Kaepernick: Did the punishment fit the crime? My answer: Where’s the crime?

What "crime" did I commit when you represented a client against me, Charles? What did I do that was worth eating up two and a half years of my life?

Filed Under: cancel culture, charles harder, defamation, lawsuits, slapp, slapp suits
Companies: gawker

What That Harper's Letter About Cancel Culture Could Have Said

from the cancel-culture-and-motives dept

Earlier this week I wrote about the open letter that was published in Harper's, signed by around 150 very prominent writers/thinkers. My response to it was to heavily criticize both the premise and the specifics in the letter, and to argue that it sought to do the very thing it claimed to be against. That is, it presented itself as support for free speech and counterspeech, and against attempts to shut down speech -- and yet, almost all of the (deliberately vague) examples they pointed to were not examples of shutting down speech, but rather examples of facing consequences from speech and counterspeech itself. The open letter could -- and in many cases was -- read to basically say "we should be able to speak without professional consequences."

Some people liked my response, and some people hated it. The debate has raged on, and that's cool. That's what we should be supporting, right? More debate and speech.

Many people are referring to the letter as being about "cancel culture," even though the letter itself never uses the phrase. But everyone recognizes that the concept is what's at the core of the letter: the idea that someone will say something that "the mob" considers beyond the pale, and suddenly they're "cancelled." We'll get to how realistic that actually is shortly.

But part of the problem with the letter was that it was written in terms that could be used to both condemn overreaction by "mob" voices on Twitter and be used by certain people to say "stop criticizing my bad ideas so vociferously." It provides nothing of consequence to anyone trying to distinguish between the two, and thus when some assumed it was for the purposes of the latter, rather than the former, that should impeach the drafting of the letter itself, rather than its critics. Still, that makes the letter at best useless and at worst, capable of being used not in support of free speech, but as a tool to condemn counterspeech and consequences.

Some well meaning critics challenged my criticism of the post on a few grounds that are at least worth considering. First, was the argument that my post imputes motives to the signatories that were unfair. And I'll grant that criticism. Indeed, quite often lately, I've found that when people leap to assume the motives of others, that's often when debates and discussions go off the rails. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else, and I should try to be better about that. But there's a flipside to that argument as well, which is that there are people out there who purposely engage in bad faith arguments, and go ballistic when you call them on that, insisting that you can't impute such bad faith into their argument based solely on the words that they spoke (though, often by ignoring nearly all of the contextual relevancy that makes their bad faith evident).

In other words, there certainly are mixed motives among the signatories, and I'd argue that some signed on in good faith in the belief that the world really is being pushed by illiberal forces that are shutting down realms of speech, but also those who just seem to be upset that people are calling out their bad ideas and they're suffering the consequences for it. I focused on the latter, when a more charitable read perhaps should have focused on -- or at least acknowledged -- the former.

And as someone who has spent decades fighting for the importance of free expression, at times at great cost to myself, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what a "good faith" reading of the letter appears to want to say. But I think the letter fails to make its case on multiple grounds, even removing the question of the motives of the signatories.

First, there's the question of how widespread "cancel culture" truly is. I would argue that it exists, but is vastly overstated -- and I'm saying this as someone who has had friends expelled from their jobs unfairly in my view following online mobs ganging up on them. I do believe that, as with any speech, it is possible to use it to galvanize actions I disagree with. But, as I said in my original writeup the details matter. Many of the claims of "cancel culture" remind me of the claims of "anti-conservative bias on social media." Lots of people insist it's true, but when you ask for examples, you get back a lot of platitudes about "look around!" and "it's obvious" and "you're blind if you can't see it!" but rarely many actual examples. And, in the few cases where examples are given, they frequently fall apart under scrutiny.

This is true of many -- though not all -- of the examples of "cancel culture." Last fall, Cody Johnston did an amusing video arguing that cancel culture isn't a thing. I'd argue it is exaggerated, and a few points it makes are also misleading, but on the whole he's got a point. Many of the examples of "cancel culture" are really just the powerful and the privileged receiving some modicum of pushback for horrific actions or statements, that maybe pushed them down a rung from the very top of the ladder, but still left them in pretty privileged positions compared to just about everyone else:

Are there more relevant examples? Perhaps. A lot of people pointed to Yascha Mounk's recent article in the Atlantic entitled Stop Firing the Innocent, and I mostly agree with that article. There are a few examples out there of people being unfairly fired in response to online mobs misinterpreting or overreacting to things. The story of David Shor in that article is certainly one that many people pointed out, and it does highlight what seems like an overreaction (Shor appears to have been fired for merely tweeting a link to a study about historical voting patterns in response to violent v. non-violent protests, and some, somewhat ridiculously, interpreted the conclusions of that study to somehow be a condemnation of some of the current protests). Another set of well known examples comes from John Ronson's book from half a decade ago, "So You've Been Publicly Shamed," which highlights a few cases of arguably unfair overreactions to minor offenses.

But, here's the thing: after lots of people (including Mounk) called out what happened to Shor (more speech), many people now agree that his firing was wrong. And so, the cycle continues. Speech, counterspeech, more counterspeech, etc. Sometimes, in the midst of all that speech, bad things happen -- such as the firing of Shor. But is that an example of cancel culture run amok, or one bad result out of millions? It is very much like our debates on content moderation. Mistakes are sometimes made. It is impossible to get it right every time. But a few "bad" examples here and there are not evidence of a widespread trend.

Also, I'm still hard pressed to see how the level here is any worse than it was a few decades ago. There may be different issues over which public shaming may occur, but it wasn't that long ago that people would be ostracized for suggesting it's okay to fall in love with someone of the same gender or someone of another race. On the whole, I'd argue that we've made a lot of progress in opening up avenues of discussion -- and while we should be concerned about the cases that go wrong, the evidence that there's some big change beyond what has happened in the past are lacking. Indeed, I feel like I remember this nearly identical debate from when I was a kid and the fight was over "too much political correctness," which is a form of the same thing.

I think it's natural for some folks to always feel that they are being treated unfairly for their beliefs, and that people overreact. It's not a new phenomenon. It's not driven by the internet or some other new idea. Indeed, as philosopher Agnes Callard tweeted, you can go back to John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" to find him discussing "cancel culture" as well:

And, again, the details matter, and in many cases the different degrees of criticism and "cancellation" make a huge difference in whether or not the situation was just or not. The circumstances behind each of the stories matter not just in what happened but to whom and why -- and this is why the questions were raised about the signatories and their motives. In some cases it certainly seemed that at least some of them are upset that they are facing more criticism or that they may be excluded from certain privileged platforms. But not being able to publish a nonsense opinion in the NY Times op-ed section is not being cancelled or silenced. It's one thing to have a non-public figure thrust into the limelight and effectively have their career destroyed. I can see how that's a problem. That, however, is entirely different from a very public figure having a bunch of people tell them that their ideas are bad and hurting others.

And while some signatories of the letter insisted to me that they meant the letter to be about those non-public figures, the letter itself does not make that clear and, again, can be used to serve both purposes.

Indeed, a response letter that was crowdsourced and put together by an even bigger list of people (though perhaps without as many "recognizable" names) walks through each of the vague examples in the original Harper's letter and looks at the likely details. And, with the exception of the one example of David Shor -- which it describes correctly as "indefensible, and anomalous," the other examples highlight the issue here: the details have been twisted to hide situations in which people were censured for actually making huge mistakes, not for just taking a contrarian view.

And, once again, that gets at the problem of how awful the letter is: its language can be used both to defend free speech and to paper over truly awful behavior, and while some of the signatories meant it to do the former, it certainly gives the appearance of being used by others to do the latter.

One other criticism I received, along the lines of it being unfair to pin motives of some of the signatories on all of them, was this is the nature of getting a bunch of people to sign onto an open letter. By definition, those things will get watered down as more signatories have opinions, and many people will sign on without necessarily reading through the details. That's not a good excuse. Recognizing the intent of the letter and who you are joining with is part of understanding context. And, as if to prove what a silly criticism that is, take a look again at the crowdsourced letter above, also signed by a bunch of people, and worked on together as a group. It makes key points much more directly and is a much, much, much riskier letter in many ways.

The signatories call for a refusal of “any false choice between justice and freedom.” It seems at best obtuse and inappropriate, and at worst actively racist, to mention the ongoing protests calling for policing reform and abolition and then proceed to argue that it is the signatories who are “paying the price in greater risk aversion.” It’s particularly insulting that they’ve chosen now, a time marked by, as they describe, “powerful protests for racial and social justice,” to detract from the public conversation about who gets to have a platform.

It is impossible to see how these signatories are contributing to “the most vital causes of our time” during this moment of widespread reckoning with oppressive social systems. Their letter seeks to uphold a “stifling atmosphere” and prioritizes signal-blasting their discomfort in the face of valid criticism. The intellectual freedom of cis white intellectuals has never been under threat en masse, especially when compared to how writers from marginalized groups have been treated for generations. In fact, they have never faced serious consequences — only momentary discomfort.

I think that Jill Filipovic's response to the letter may be most aligned with my thinking: that cancel culture is overstated, that some of the signatories of the letter were signing on because they're upset that a wider public with a voice is criticizing them, but that there are at least a few cases of egregious overreaction to online mobbing, and sometimes that involves the loss of a job. Her argument makes some amount of sense -- that you shouldn't be fired for your bad opinions if your bad opinions have nothing to do with your job:

So yes, most of the “cancel culture” complaints are overwrought. On the long list of things worth caring about, cancel culture is very low down. Criticism is not cancelation. Conflict is not censorship. On all of these issues, the right is far, far worse (how many voices opposing the party line are at Fox, or on right-wing websites, or speaking at conservative religious colleges?). Often, the right uses this narrative of the “intolerant left” to cover for its own misdeeds and groupthink, and it’s an underhanded, bullshit tactic that too many progressives fall for.

But.

It is also true that there have been instances — many instances — where people have been fired from their jobs (and not just in media) for holding opinions that have nothing to do with their ability to perform said job, and who are fired entirely because an employer doesn’t want the PR headache.

Of course, even that is not always so black and white. If your opinions create larger problems for a company -- including costs that go beyond just giving PR a headache -- does it really make sense to just say that the companies need to shoulder that burden? But I do think it's fair to try to explore context more deeply. What is the context in which the statements are being made -- and who is making them? Is it a situation that involves speaking truth to power? Or is it a situation that involves using a position of privilege to keep down the less fortunate?

That is to say, as with so much, it's complicated.

And part of that complication is not just that different people have different motives and that mistakes are made, but that the level of "penalty" people receive differs quite a bit as well. If the original letter had legitimately focused exclusively on some of the more significant consequences, and could clearly demonstrate were out of bounds, it might have a good point. But it lumps "public shame and ostracism" in the same category as more significant retribution. And that was part of what made me think the original letter was so lame. Sure, some people were signing onto it to highlight those few egregious cases (though, again, it's unclear that those situations are new or any different than in the past), but the letter lumped in a much wider variety of things.

Another part of the complication is that as times change, our understanding and sensitivities to certain ideas shift as well. In my original piece I argue it's not evident from where I sit that the space in which ideas can be discussed is shrinking. There are so many things today that can be seen, discussed, and read that were impossible to get out there just a few decades ago, and that's incredible. That said, it is true that there are certain things that used to be more commonplace that are now much more sensitive areas. But a big part of that is actually our recognition that things which used to be considered okay (e.g., casual bigotry) are no longer considered okay. And a huge reason those are no longer considered okay is that we've opened up this wider "marketplace of ideas" to more voices, often from folks who were previously unable to share their points of view, and their persuasive speech has convinced many that what used to be deemed okay is not and, in fact, never was.

Finally, I'd argue that while it's possible that some people make innocent mistakes, and that we should try to take into account whether or not saying a truly dumb or hurtful thing was an uneducated mistake or outright maliciousness, we can and should be able to judge that by what happens next. That is, I agree with the letter writers that people shouldn't lose their job over a single innocent tweet taken out of context. But it's much, much harder to make that case for someone who doubles down, refuses to learn, refuses to investigate why their words are causing so much pain and hurt, and then attacks those who are trying to educate them on their truly awful stance.

So if I were to try to rewrite the letter to make the actual point that the authors seemed to want to make, I'd probably go with something like the following:

Free speech is a key foundational idea and value which we support. Along with that, though, we recognize that speech has consequences, and some of those consequences may include counterspeech that may lead to action. We recognize that persuasive speech that leads to action may be for things we agree with and also for things we disagree with. We are concerned about situations in which the actions and consequences of speech may unfairly and disproportionately punish people for innocent transgressions -- and how that may create unnecessary chilling effects that run counter to the ideal of free speech. Yet at the same time we recognize that this is complicated, and situations may appear differently to different people.

The world is a complicated and ever changing space. Some of that change is for good and some is for bad. There are people with all kinds of motivations out there, and it is all too easy to leap to the worst conclusions about motivations. We should all strive to be cautious in assigning motive, and we should investigate why someone said what they said before leaping to conclusions or rushing to condemn them to the level at which they'd face reprisal -- while also recognizing that there are those out there who will argue in bad faith. Distinguishing between the two is often difficult.

In many ways, the world is more free and open for debate today than in the past -- new and previously unheard voices are being heard and promoted and celebrated for the first time and we should encourage that. This open debate and discussion has also resulted in a changing societal consensus on what is, and what is not, appropriate. Quite frequently this is also for good. We are becoming more sensitive to the harms that people have faced and are reckoning with all of those, thanks in part to the robust debate and discussion about these ideas.

At the same time, in our ongoing and righteous zeal to revisit areas that were previously overlooked and underexplored, there are times when people may go too far. There are times when the nuance and details and context are not initially clear, and some people -- including ourselves -- may overreact. That overreaction often leads to consequences which, when the full situation is explored and understood, seem unfair. We should seek to be aware that this may happen, and try to avoid it. Furthermore, we should recognize that as fallible as humans are, we will sometimes discover this too late, and should seek to rectify it when we do.

The details will always matter. We should not assume simplistic narratives all of the time, when often there are mixed motivations and complex factors and variables involved. There may be situations that appear similar on the surface, but upon deeper exploration turn out to be quite different. We should be willing to explore those details and to recognize that, sometimes, people we like will face consequences for their speech for an extended pattern of truly reprehensible behavior.

However, we should leave space open for people to learn and to grow. We should recognize that a single misdeed may be innocent and should treat it as such. We should see how people respond to such feedback. At the same time, we should also recognize that a pattern and practice of questionable and hurtful behavior may suggest a person who is deliberately, and in bad faith, seeking to game the system.

This starts with us. We, who have signed this letter, have not always lived up to these ideals either. Everyone will make mistakes sometimes, and we hope to learn from them as well. We are excited about the power of new voices to be heard and join the conversation, and realize this often challenges our strongly held beliefs. We hope that, in the spirit of learning from these new voices that criticism of other views will also take on a recognition that there is room to understand and to change -- or, on the flipside -- to build stronger arguments to the contrary.

I think that approach would have made the point much better. It would acknowledge that things are often more complicated than they appear on the surface, that there are different motivations behind actions, and that sometimes speech does lead to consequences that not everyone will agree with. But, most of all, that approach acknowledges that everyone makes these kinds of mistakes at some point. The original letter framed the issue as if the signatories were the righteous believers in free speech, against the "others" out there trying to shut them down -- without any recognition that some of the signatories and the letter itself often seemed to be advocating for the silencing of others as well.

In the end: free speech is important, but like with so many things it's more complicated the deeper you explore, because free speech itself has consequences, and we should strive to understand the impact of our speech, to learn, and to expand our own thinking over time as well.

Filed Under: cancel culture, culture, free speech, mob mentality, nuance, overreaction

Harper's Gives Prestigious Platform To Famous Writers So They Can Whine About Being Silenced

from the freedom-from-consequences-is-not-free-speech dept

There's a slightly bizarre Letter on Justice and Open Debate that Harper's Magazine is publishing, signed by a long list of famous people (many of whom I respect, and plenty of whom I think are terribly entitled wannabe "controversial" intellectuals who are really just assholes). The framing of the letter is one I've heard quite a lot of late: concerns that there is some sort of "illiberal attack on free speech," in which certain individuals and their ideas are no longer even allowed. It's the more intellectual argument against so-called "cancel culture." And, yes, there are examples of people being shut down for expressing their ideas, but it is much less common than people would have you believe. In many cases, what people are complaining about is not that their speech is being shut down, but that they are facing consequences for their speech being ridiculous.

There are few things more misunderstood than the distinction between speech and consequences. Indeed, all too frequently people argue that consequences from speech are attempts to stamp out free speech, and just as common is the idea that actual attempts to silence free speech (e.g., SLAPP defamation lawsuits) are just "consequences" of speech. Neither is accurate. Attempts to stop free speech are attempts to use state power (such as the courts) to stop people from being able to express themselves. But people saying your ideas are bad and venerable institutions shouldn't amplify them is not an attack on free speech or open inquiry. It's a recognition that not all ideas are equal, and not all ideas deserve the kind of escalation and promotion that some speakers wish they had.

This goes back to two recent discussions we've had here on Techdirt. First, a discussion about the differences between moderation, discretion, and censorship along with a followup on editorial discretion, and the debate over the NY Times publishing Tom Cotton's op-ed about sending in the military in response to the possibility of violence at mostly-peaceful protests. There were a bunch of people who responded to criticism of the Times by claiming it was an attack on speech, which was utter nonsense. If the NY Times chooses not to publish something (as it does every damn day) that's not censorship and it's not shutting down debate of difficult ideas. It's just editorial discretion. The fact that the NY Times eventually forced out the editor who made the bad decision to publish Cotton's piece was not an attack on free speech but consequences for doing a bad job. That's consequences for speech, and not censorship.

Back to the open letter at hand. It seems to confuse these concepts greatly. I agree that we should be vigilant and concerned about attacks on free speech, but almost nothing described in the letter is an actual attack on free speech.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.

First off, hogwash. There are more places and ways to speak your mind than ever before, and the free exchange of information and ideas is more available and accessible to all sorts of voices than ever before in history. The idea that it's "more constricted" has no basis in reality. There are so many different ways to get ideas out there today, and that has actually enabled tons of previously suppressed voices to speak out loudly and clearly -- even if sometimes it's to point out that the supposed wisdom of others is anything but. There is no real evidence of any "constriction." There is evidence that many people are utilizing their newfound voices and ability to express themselves to show that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to some of the ideas presented by the old guard.

While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

With so many famous and serious authors signing onto this letter, I have to call out the use of the word "censoriousness". This word is commonly misused and misunderstood. It does not mean, as many assume, prone to censorship. That word is "censorial." Censorious actually means hypercritical of others, not trying to force them into silence. Given the literary nature and stature of the signatories of this letter, I would assume that those who wrote this (1) know this and are actually using the word correctly, but know full well that (2) most readers will assume the other, mistaken, interpretation of the word.

As to the larger point of this sentence, it is still, itself, quite problematic. First off, "public shaming" and "ostracism" are literally examples of counterspeech and open debate. In other words, this sentence appears to be complaining about the very thing the authors claim to be supporting: counterspeech. Public shaming and ostracism are the consequences of speech that a group feels is ridiculous, problematic, dangerous or otherwise not worth spreading widely. That's the opposite of being censorial. It is the opposite of shutting down speech. It is literally people speaking up to explain why those who hold odious views should be shamed for those views. It is a form of counterspeech and consequences from that counterspeech. On top of that it is an attempt to encourage bodies that host, promote, and elevate speech to think carefully about which speech deserves it.

That is quite different than actually censoring such speech and suggesting that no one should ever be allowed to say what they want anywhere. It is saying if you have dumb ideas, people may think you're dumb, and may ask why others are elevating those dumb ideas. The protests are not to say you can't speak, but rather to ask "why is this speech being held up as insightful or praiseworthy?"

It is only on the very final point of this sentence that I agree with the authors. It is, indeed, a problem when we try to dissolve complex policy issues "in a blinding moral certainty," and yet... that also seems to be exactly what the authors of this very letter are doing. They are saying that it is morally unconscionable that some of them and their friends have been censured (not censored) for their non-serious ideas. And that is fundamentally a refusal to recognize the complexity of how speech, counterspeech, and consequences work with a "moral certainty" that their own august voices being shunned and shamed must be bad.

We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

Unless it includes public shaming or consequences for your in-group speech, apparently. Indeed, this is the most frustrating thing about this letter. It seeks to do to others exactly what it, itself is complaining about.

But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.

Yes, via counterspeech. And, again, the complaint is not that one is allowed to speak wacky ideas, but rather that those ideas are being hosted, elevated, or held up as special when they are in fact trash.

More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.

This is a complaint about consequences of speech, not speech. It is a complaint about how people react to the counterspeech the authors falsely claim to be so supportive of.

Then comes the list of examples -- none linked, none with details.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

With the possible exception of public schools (which have more restrictions as government entities), all of these appear to be about the actions of private organizations making decisions based on counterspeech, and presenting speakers with the consequences of speech that many have deemed (often for very good reasons, though not always) unworthy of praise, promotion or elevation.

Read that sentence again carefully. What the signatories here seem to be requesting is not more free speech. Nor is it more counterspeech (indeed, it's an attack on counterspeech). They appear to be asking for freedom from consequences for their own speech. Please don't publicly shame us or make our bosses rethink our employment for our speech, no matter how bad it is. That is not a pro-free speech stance. It is a anti-consequences stance, and it's truly disappointing to see many of the signatories endorse this.

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.

The first clause of this sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The arguments matter. The arguments are the counterspeech. The arguments are the speech that the signatories of this letter seem so uncomfortable with. The arguments have been persuasive. That's why these signatories are so upset. The counterspeech has been effective. It has resulted in consequences as institutions have recognized that maybe they shouldn't be employing people with bad ideas, or promoting and elevating those ideas.

And, again, it is fundamentally ridiculous and ahistorical to argue that the boundaries of what can be said have narrowed. Honestly, you do not have to go back very far to find examples of topics of conversation that were fundamentally taboo and are now widespread and common. And many of those new ideas have resulted in massive, important social change: civil rights and civil liberties now exist in more meaningful forms than they ever did before because of people speaking out. The ability of LGBTQ+ people to marry whom they love coming just decades after it was literally illegal to do so is a result of more people being able to speak out. The ability of the Black Lives Matter movement to rally so many people in support of their cause and pull the curtains back on centuries of institutional, systemic racism is a result of more people being able to speak out.

The idea that there's been some narrowing of ideas is nonsense. These people are getting criticized for their bad ideas and their response is to play victim and pretend that the space in which they can speak has narrowed. They're full of shit.

We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

Oh, come on. Spare me the sob story. Go down the list of signatories. Many are incredibly famous, are regularly published in the top publications, and often appear on TV. They have no fear for their livelihoods. And trust me, whatever "contrarian" ideas they claim they're not able to share are, in fact, still being shared widely. There are all sorts of ways in which they get to express their viewpoints, and they do. Getting criticized for those ideas is counterspeech -- the the thing they claim to be supporting. They're just playing the victim.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.

If the problem was a repressive government actually engaged in censorship, I would agree wholeheartedly. Yet, note that in their list of examples they do not provide a single one that involves a repressive government. Rather they only present examples of private entities making decisions (consequences) based on counterspeech. Counterspeech which these cowards pretend they support.

The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.

We agree. And yet, the only ones trying to silence anyone here are those in this letter, saying that public shaming is somehow beyond the pale. It's almost as if they don't really want "argument and persuasion" while pretending that's exactly what they do want. If they believe that the public shaming (counterspeech) is bad, then they should go right ahead and use argument and persuasion to show why it's actually bad, without claiming it's an unfair attack on their speech. Inasmuch as this letter attempts to do so, it fails. They should recognize that if their arguments suck -- as they often do -- people nowadays are less afraid to call that out.

We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other.

A meaningless, empty sentence.

As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes.

Indeed. On this I agree. But if you look around, there are so many wonderful experiments and plenty of risk taking going on. More than ever before. That's not the problem. The problem is this privileged bunch of elites are upset that people are now actually willing to call out their bad ideas as bad.

We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.

And that gives away the ballgame: "we want to present bad ideas without losing our readers or our jobs." That's just not how it works. These people have spent their lives protected in ivory towers, and are now facing real free speech from people who are outside of their privileged bubble, and are freaking the fuck out about it.

If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Sure, but stop pretending consequences and counterspeech are anti-speech. You're not actually the brave truth tellers you want to be. You're coming off as privileged elitists who are being challenged on ideas for the first time. The signatories are so quick to clutch pearls about people actually calling out bad ideas as bad, and saying that maybe institutions who have editorial discretion should be a bit more discretionary, that they seem to think facing consequences for speech is somehow anti-free speech. It's not.

Filed Under: cancel culture, debate, discretion, free speech, justice, moderation, open debate, promotion