People who are loosing their shit about SAN (and about this article) completely bypass the issue that at no point did any of the signatories of the open letter held any power over Substack other than:
- loudly condemning it.
- reaching out to others to do the same.
- ultimately leave it
And that's, to this date, all that they have fucking done. It would seem that all of these valiant free speech warriors think that the only actions consistent with a commitment to free speech are:
- shutting up
- minding your own business
- staying put in places you don't want to be in
It is a very "out of the box" notion of freedom through what we might call "radical compliance".
I was very perplexed by the framing that I and other signatories have power. At best, we're a group of people standing on the street protesting. It's not like we grabbed control of Substack's moderation controls!
A very weak analysis. Instead of contributing something meaningful to the discussion that you admit has been going on for quite a long time, you repeat the same tired arguments that have been made a million times over.
In particular, your refusal to grapple with the distinction between the principle of freedom of speech and the first amendment is disappointing but unsurprising.
Simply saying (paraphrased) "I think most people would say that 'freedom of speech' means 'the first amendment', so that's what I'm going to assume it means" is not grappling with the distinction.
Let me put it another way: the fundamental point of contention that you need to overcome is that that those who disagree with you *do not think that the principle of freedom of speech should only apply to the government or only be thought of in the context of the first amendment*. Your piece does nothing to actually address that point of contention.
Again, it does. It points out that the people who are constantly talking about free speech don’t have a coherent definition of it.
In contrast, I provide mine: the ability to say/write what you want without censorship by the state.
It’s not my job to provide a definition for the “Free Speech Defenders” who won’t provide one for themselves. I don’t believe they have one, so I’m not going to guess what it is.
"The people who are constantly talking about free speech don’t have a coherent definition of it. In contrast, I provide mine: the ability to say/write what you want without censorship by the state."
That's a bit insulting. The coeherent definition would eb the same as yours, but without the qualifier of "the state".
= "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship."
The state, organisations, universities, whatever - the source is irrelevant. As someone from Scotaland, it is a very American focus to put the US constitution as a core of things, but that forgets that the rest of the world exists. :-)
The problem I take with assuming others define free speech as "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship" is that there are many actions supposed free speech absolutists have taken that are contradictory to this.
Infamously, when Bari Weiss launched her University, she stated criticism of Israel would not be allowed. She even put it online!
I don't mean to have the American-only focus (though I'm sure I have that bias), but rather I think free speech is currently defined that way. I would actually like it to carry as we take collective ownership of the economy, but that's a much bigger picture.
"The problem I take with assuming others define free speech as "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship" is that there are many actions supposed free speech absolutists have taken that are contradictory to this."
To me, the fact some people may say one thing and do another just means those people are hypocrites. It doesn't undercut the principle. Same as people saying they are vegetarian but then later you find out they eat fish, or say they're vegan but then you find out they eat honey - that just means the person is mistaken, it doesn't invalidate veganism. Yet you'll get people saying "Oh, vegans are hypocrites, they eat honey". Totally wrong - the ones eating honey aren't vegan! Just as someone who says they believe in full free speech but then restricts it obviously doesn't really believe in full free speech.
[PS I don't care if people eat honey, and if someone has a mostly vegan diet but also eats honey I'm sure they are still amazing people (I just have an issue with terms being misused! Likewise if someone says "I mostly eat vegetarian, but do eat fish occasionally" that's fine as a statement, but it would just be wrong to say "I'm a vegetarian."] :-)
"A Substack spokesperson told Public that Newton’s list contains just 6 Substacks with 29 paid subscribers between them, a tiny fraction of the more than 2 million paid subscribers the service has today.
The spokesperson added that Substack will be reviewing whether these 6 publications violate the platform’s pre-existing policy against incitement to violence.
Given the tone of the protestations from Newton, Katz, and others you’d think that Substack was aflow in neo-Nazi content – everywhere you turn, you find yourself face to face with a well-read, highly-regarded bonafide white supremacist publication.
But a closer look at Katz’s article – the missive that started this all – reveals how little reach these substacks have in the first place.
One Substack he cites that contains an anti-Jewish rant about vaccines had no likes or shares and just one comment on it during the entire month of December – and that comment was left by the author himself, who decided to add an addendum to his post.
“Know thine emeries, for they shall make you strong”. My boss had that written on a chalkboard for years. Students, Substack, etc have a right to censure content, being non gov., but should they? Students, Substackers, can protest in any ways they want, or don’t attend/read...but to block speakers with unpopular or yes, even, dangerous views? Better to hear them out and take them on! Use what you learn to turn the tide against them. Not knowing what/why/how/when they are promoting ideas makes you weak. Further...do you have the “right” to keep ideas from your fellow citizens? Don’t trust them to make their own decisions?
The notion that we don't "know" what Nazis are saying is very bizarre, considering they're all over the internet. It's very easy to find out. Also, by this logic, we should give them a primetime spot on nightly news so we can "prepare" to debate them.
"Further...do you have the “right” to keep ideas from your fellow citizens?"
No, I don't. Which is why I'm not trying to keep anyone from reading it. I criticized Substack for profiting from Nazism. If you or anyone else wants to read/hear Nazism, you can easily find it.
A somewhat hypothetical question , which hopefully remains in that realm. Leading cadre of the Communist Party, USA were put on trial under the Smith Act , beginning back in 1949. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders . A big part of the prosecutions case was built on the assertion that the Marxist-Leninist doctrines and strategy of the CPUSA advocated and planned for a violent seizure of power against the U.S. Capitalist State , in league with the CPSU. The Party leaders just as was the case in the Smith Act prosecutions of leaders and activists of the (Trotskyist) SWP , previous (the CPUSA had supported that repressive set of acts vs. the SWP, didn't that rebound to their favor, eh, later on?) were put into what I call a dialectical pretzel, attempting to say loyal to their own M-L convictions and principles, while also denying that the Party did hold out as a potential necessity in the revolutionary seizure of power and subsequent period of socialist construction under the dictatorship of the proletariat violence against the capitalist class and its lackeys , all the counter-revolutionaries . Their stated goals , just as much as was the case with the Weather Underground , active in my youth, were also to eventually enact , through violence if needed (and c'mon no ruling class has ever ceded the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in our case , w/o violence) the creation of an socialist state , on the passage towards communism.
Cue to a defense of the violence of the oppressed and its political representation (the vanguard Party of the working class ) sweeping away all the illusions of the PMC "Left ."
I guess the problem for me is that this is framed based on the US, and their constitution. That may be relevant to Americans, but free speech is a concept that is global. So just because the US has a rule that applies to US government, that doesn't mean that should be the limit of free speech.
To my knowledge, the first amendment goes further to protect speech than many European nations - France banning pro-Palestine protests, Germany banning Nazi iconography.
Is there any nation that has laws that says speech must always be enabled, even when the government is not involved?
I think we're at cross purposes. I believe in free speech _regardless_ of what governments say. Same as I believe people shouldn't be killed regardless of what governments say. So if I'm talking about my belief in the right to free speech, then whether a government allows it or restricts it (which, as you say, varies) is irrelevant to whether I think we have the right. Same as people had the right not to be slaves, but many governments didn't allow the right for centuries - the governments were wrong.
So on the one hand there is the debate about whether we should have free speech or not. On the other hand is the debate about how much we should have, and what is allowed legally. I think our two debates crossed over. :-)
Leftists I "know" via Facebook, who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, call this writer on Substack a ,"Nazi," https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/ , but, others I know in real life, face to face, active in the Green Party love Caitlin Johnstone and view these critics of hers, alleging she is a Nazi , as overheated. It gets so confusing.
Caitlin is great. I'm a vegan environmentalist pacifist and have never read any of her posts since I came across her Substack which made me think anything but "Yes, someone saying what I want to say, but with a louder voice!"
"In her doltishly titled article Lefties Need To Stop Being Shy About Working With The Anti-Establishment Right, Johnstone explains that rejecting the normalization of the far right amounts to “vanity politics,” and that leftists who refuse alliance with fascists are not interested in “actually getting anything done.” I found this very interesting because, to my knowledge, Johnstone herself has never actually gotten anything done other than write a blog in which she excoriates others for not getting anything done. From all indications, Johnstone has exactly ZERO experience doing real organizing work on the ground, either in her native Australia or in the US." More at https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/enough-nonsense-the-left-does-not-collaborate-with-fascists/
"Today the Alt-Right, much like its precursor in the pre-9/11 New Right, is asserting a putative political need for a democratic society to maintain an absolute tolerance of abusive and even assaultive speech—as protected forms of “dissent.” It is now using the “charge of imperiling free speech … to silence oppressed and marginalized groups and to push back against their interests” (Stanley 2016). In opposition, Marcuse’s repressive tolerance essay called out in 1965 what is now more widely recognized today as “the free speech fallacy” (Stanley 2016). If we all have a de jure right to express any opinion in public, the de facto condition is that left opinions are usually marginalized and often suppressed, while Right-wing ones, which benefit the ruling class, are given free play. “This pure tolerance of sense and nonsense” practiced under the conditions prevailing in the United States today “cannot fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely protection of dissent” (Marcuse 1965, 94, 117). We need to stress this analysis of the false equivalence of reactionary and emancipatory speech, fascist and anti-fascist violence..." https://www.rpamag.org/2019/08/marcuses-relevance-today-violence-racism-and-the-critique-of-pure-tolerance
It's no longer the 1960s. The so-called "right" that you reference is not the ruling class today. Today's ruling class is the "corporate left" - leftist organizations and causes being used by big money and big government to keep the people fighting over identify politics vs. dealing with class issues and other problems. Among other things. They abuse notions of oppression and equity to justify their corporate and state-sponsored censorship. E.g., they get you focused on censoring "Nazis" when they are really about censoring any and all grassroots they aren't actively manipulating and controlling.
"Free speech is not a Get Out Of Jail Free Card people can play whenever they want to escape criticism or force others to listen to their terrible ideas." Since when does allowing someone to post on a social media platform become "forcing" someone to listen? What a lame reason to censor someone!
So basically, you advocate mob rule of big tech companies to force them to oust speech you don't like, which currently serves you - since these companies (for now) are primarily in alignment with your views and you agree with the mob. But should Facebook start to censor pro-Palestinian content, or censor your pet causes, you'd be singing a different tune and going on about how we can't let big, monolithic corporations control our speech.
Would you be OK with a mob of right-wing people demanding that Substack remove all pro-trans content since it harms children? Would you be OK if Substack caved in to that? Then it's not OK in the reverse. Don't tell me this is just about Nazis, because the people on your side are disingenuous and falsely conflate anyone who disagrees with current liberal orthodoxy as "far-right" or a "Nazi" or a "conspiracy theorist." Like you targeting Bari Weiss here. Ridiculous.
To folks in the progressive purity mob, Jimmy Dore is now a far-right conspiracy theorist, with Bill Maher coming up close behind. The purity tests the left now has for proper thought are becoming narrower and narrower, with heavier and heavier penalties. It's why progressives like me broke free, because the left is now mentally and emotionally stifling, with no room for disagreement.
Big tech censorship isn't just a private company issue, by the way. The US government was pressuring big tech companies during the pandemic to censor...and Pfizer was also pushing a censorship agenda as well. So the government is often involved, often in collusion with big companies with deep pockets...
And either way, we shouldn't let big tech determine what is true, what is not true, and what we can speak about - Facebook has gotten so bad it will even delete links from PRIVATE MESSAGES it doesn't like. If you think that's OK, you have completely lost any respect for free speech and privacy.
PS On the positive, you allow comments here from non-paying readers. 99% of progressive Substack publications do not, or shut off comments when they can't handle disagreement, from my experience.
"Since when does allowing someone to post on a social media platform become "forcing" someone to listen?" - This was more a reference to the Bari Weiss-types who chastise college kids for not going to her speeches.
"Would you be OK with a mob of right-wing people demanding that Substack remove all pro-trans content since it harms children?"
I hear this argument a lot, and it's never persuasive. It basically comes down to, "If the left criticizes the Company X for hosting literal Nazis, the Right will pretend Leftists are equal to Nazis." It's ridiculous, and honestly is more of an indictment of rightists than me.
If you think trans rights bloggers are even remotely equivalent to those calling for a second Holocaust, you need to log off.
Some trans activists are actively calling for the death of TERFs. So...would you ban those trans activists calling for the death of TERFs along with those calling for another holocaust? If so, then that's consistent.
That's a start with the consistency. But the issue is a bit more complex because the intention of Jonathan Katz et al is not to just remove "Nazis" calling for violence but anyone the mob deems to be a Nazi. So are you advocating for the removal of all Nazis, those labeled as Nazis, or only Nazis calling for violence? Are you OK with Nazis who don't call for violence to remain on Substack?
Well you're talking to me, so I'm not going to speak for Katz or anyone else. If you want their opinion, go talk to them.
As Nazism is inherently violent, any expression of its belief is a call for violence. They should all be removed. There's no such thing as a "non violent Nazi."
"So basically, you advocate mob rule of big tech companies to force them to oust speech you don't like, which currently serves you - since these companies (for now) are primarily in alignment with your views and you agree with the mob."
This is untrue. I'm a socialist. I believe these companies should be owned by the workers. I promise you, whatever alleged alignment I have with tech bros on something like gay rights, it pales in comparison to our disagreement that I don't think they should be profiting off the labor of others.
I'm in favor of worker-owned companies done voluntarily, not socialism by government control where the government owns the companies. So if worker-owned companies want to have clear conduct guidelines for their membership, along with a democratic process, that's fine, but what we have now are big megalithic tech corporations with zero accountability to the membership, no democracy, and no way to get redress of grievances much less any due process regarding content "moderation" (aka censorship).
About as likely to occur in the short to medium term , given the balance of forces in the political terrains, popular and legislative and executive, stacked against the broad left, as a dictatorship of the proletariat after the vanguard sectors of that class under the leadership of the PSL, DSA, WWP, PCUSA, WWP and FRSO unite in a mass "Party," and blow this rotten system to hell.
No, that won't solve the issue - the US government was leading the charge with censorship during the pandemic due to regulatory capture - i.e., the FDA/CDC is filled with corporate cronies and politicians from both sides of the aisle get big bucks from big pharma. Instead, have the workers buy out Facebook but keep the government out of it.
People who are loosing their shit about SAN (and about this article) completely bypass the issue that at no point did any of the signatories of the open letter held any power over Substack other than:
- loudly condemning it.
- reaching out to others to do the same.
- ultimately leave it
And that's, to this date, all that they have fucking done. It would seem that all of these valiant free speech warriors think that the only actions consistent with a commitment to free speech are:
- shutting up
- minding your own business
- staying put in places you don't want to be in
It is a very "out of the box" notion of freedom through what we might call "radical compliance".
I was very perplexed by the framing that I and other signatories have power. At best, we're a group of people standing on the street protesting. It's not like we grabbed control of Substack's moderation controls!
Yeah but have you considered that *mumble mumble mumble* legacy media *mumble mumble* cancel culture?
A very weak analysis. Instead of contributing something meaningful to the discussion that you admit has been going on for quite a long time, you repeat the same tired arguments that have been made a million times over.
In particular, your refusal to grapple with the distinction between the principle of freedom of speech and the first amendment is disappointing but unsurprising.
"Your refusal to grapple with the distinction between the principle of freedom of speech and the first amendment is disappointing but unsurprising."
This is **literally** the entire content of the article.
Simply saying (paraphrased) "I think most people would say that 'freedom of speech' means 'the first amendment', so that's what I'm going to assume it means" is not grappling with the distinction.
Let me put it another way: the fundamental point of contention that you need to overcome is that that those who disagree with you *do not think that the principle of freedom of speech should only apply to the government or only be thought of in the context of the first amendment*. Your piece does nothing to actually address that point of contention.
Again, it does. It points out that the people who are constantly talking about free speech don’t have a coherent definition of it.
In contrast, I provide mine: the ability to say/write what you want without censorship by the state.
It’s not my job to provide a definition for the “Free Speech Defenders” who won’t provide one for themselves. I don’t believe they have one, so I’m not going to guess what it is.
It sounds like you think free speech means something beyond the 1st Amendment. Can you provide a definition, please?
"The people who are constantly talking about free speech don’t have a coherent definition of it. In contrast, I provide mine: the ability to say/write what you want without censorship by the state."
That's a bit insulting. The coeherent definition would eb the same as yours, but without the qualifier of "the state".
= "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship."
The state, organisations, universities, whatever - the source is irrelevant. As someone from Scotaland, it is a very American focus to put the US constitution as a core of things, but that forgets that the rest of the world exists. :-)
The problem I take with assuming others define free speech as "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship" is that there are many actions supposed free speech absolutists have taken that are contradictory to this.
Infamously, when Bari Weiss launched her University, she stated criticism of Israel would not be allowed. She even put it online!
I don't mean to have the American-only focus (though I'm sure I have that bias), but rather I think free speech is currently defined that way. I would actually like it to carry as we take collective ownership of the economy, but that's a much bigger picture.
"The problem I take with assuming others define free speech as "The ability to say/write what you want without censorship" is that there are many actions supposed free speech absolutists have taken that are contradictory to this."
To me, the fact some people may say one thing and do another just means those people are hypocrites. It doesn't undercut the principle. Same as people saying they are vegetarian but then later you find out they eat fish, or say they're vegan but then you find out they eat honey - that just means the person is mistaken, it doesn't invalidate veganism. Yet you'll get people saying "Oh, vegans are hypocrites, they eat honey". Totally wrong - the ones eating honey aren't vegan! Just as someone who says they believe in full free speech but then restricts it obviously doesn't really believe in full free speech.
[PS I don't care if people eat honey, and if someone has a mostly vegan diet but also eats honey I'm sure they are still amazing people (I just have an issue with terms being misused! Likewise if someone says "I mostly eat vegetarian, but do eat fish occasionally" that's fine as a statement, but it would just be wrong to say "I'm a vegetarian."] :-)
"A Substack spokesperson told Public that Newton’s list contains just 6 Substacks with 29 paid subscribers between them, a tiny fraction of the more than 2 million paid subscribers the service has today.
The spokesperson added that Substack will be reviewing whether these 6 publications violate the platform’s pre-existing policy against incitement to violence.
Given the tone of the protestations from Newton, Katz, and others you’d think that Substack was aflow in neo-Nazi content – everywhere you turn, you find yourself face to face with a well-read, highly-regarded bonafide white supremacist publication.
But a closer look at Katz’s article – the missive that started this all – reveals how little reach these substacks have in the first place.
One Substack he cites that contains an anti-Jewish rant about vaccines had no likes or shares and just one comment on it during the entire month of December – and that comment was left by the author himself, who decided to add an addendum to his post.
Others have found a bit more traction – but not much. Patrick Casey, who was previously a leader in the American white nationalist Identity Evropa movement, runs a Substack page cited by Katz that gets a tiny amount of engagement from readers. His most popular post of all time, as ranked by the number of likes, has only 10 likes and no comments..." https://public.substack.com/p/censors-are-trying-to-trick-you-into?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2FNazi%2520&utm_medium=reader2
“Know thine emeries, for they shall make you strong”. My boss had that written on a chalkboard for years. Students, Substack, etc have a right to censure content, being non gov., but should they? Students, Substackers, can protest in any ways they want, or don’t attend/read...but to block speakers with unpopular or yes, even, dangerous views? Better to hear them out and take them on! Use what you learn to turn the tide against them. Not knowing what/why/how/when they are promoting ideas makes you weak. Further...do you have the “right” to keep ideas from your fellow citizens? Don’t trust them to make their own decisions?
P
The notion that we don't "know" what Nazis are saying is very bizarre, considering they're all over the internet. It's very easy to find out. Also, by this logic, we should give them a primetime spot on nightly news so we can "prepare" to debate them.
"Further...do you have the “right” to keep ideas from your fellow citizens?"
No, I don't. Which is why I'm not trying to keep anyone from reading it. I criticized Substack for profiting from Nazism. If you or anyone else wants to read/hear Nazism, you can easily find it.
A somewhat hypothetical question , which hopefully remains in that realm. Leading cadre of the Communist Party, USA were put on trial under the Smith Act , beginning back in 1949. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders . A big part of the prosecutions case was built on the assertion that the Marxist-Leninist doctrines and strategy of the CPUSA advocated and planned for a violent seizure of power against the U.S. Capitalist State , in league with the CPSU. The Party leaders just as was the case in the Smith Act prosecutions of leaders and activists of the (Trotskyist) SWP , previous (the CPUSA had supported that repressive set of acts vs. the SWP, didn't that rebound to their favor, eh, later on?) were put into what I call a dialectical pretzel, attempting to say loyal to their own M-L convictions and principles, while also denying that the Party did hold out as a potential necessity in the revolutionary seizure of power and subsequent period of socialist construction under the dictatorship of the proletariat violence against the capitalist class and its lackeys , all the counter-revolutionaries . Their stated goals , just as much as was the case with the Weather Underground , active in my youth, were also to eventually enact , through violence if needed (and c'mon no ruling class has ever ceded the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in our case , w/o violence) the creation of an socialist state , on the passage towards communism.
Cue to a defense of the violence of the oppressed and its political representation (the vanguard Party of the working class ) sweeping away all the illusions of the PMC "Left ."
I guess the problem for me is that this is framed based on the US, and their constitution. That may be relevant to Americans, but free speech is a concept that is global. So just because the US has a rule that applies to US government, that doesn't mean that should be the limit of free speech.
To my knowledge, the first amendment goes further to protect speech than many European nations - France banning pro-Palestine protests, Germany banning Nazi iconography.
Is there any nation that has laws that says speech must always be enabled, even when the government is not involved?
I think we're at cross purposes. I believe in free speech _regardless_ of what governments say. Same as I believe people shouldn't be killed regardless of what governments say. So if I'm talking about my belief in the right to free speech, then whether a government allows it or restricts it (which, as you say, varies) is irrelevant to whether I think we have the right. Same as people had the right not to be slaves, but many governments didn't allow the right for centuries - the governments were wrong.
So on the one hand there is the debate about whether we should have free speech or not. On the other hand is the debate about how much we should have, and what is allowed legally. I think our two debates crossed over. :-)
That's a good call out, and I appreciate it!
Leftists I "know" via Facebook, who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, call this writer on Substack a ,"Nazi," https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/ , but, others I know in real life, face to face, active in the Green Party love Caitlin Johnstone and view these critics of hers, alleging she is a Nazi , as overheated. It gets so confusing.
Caitlin is great. I'm a vegan environmentalist pacifist and have never read any of her posts since I came across her Substack which made me think anything but "Yes, someone saying what I want to say, but with a louder voice!"
"In her doltishly titled article Lefties Need To Stop Being Shy About Working With The Anti-Establishment Right, Johnstone explains that rejecting the normalization of the far right amounts to “vanity politics,” and that leftists who refuse alliance with fascists are not interested in “actually getting anything done.” I found this very interesting because, to my knowledge, Johnstone herself has never actually gotten anything done other than write a blog in which she excoriates others for not getting anything done. From all indications, Johnstone has exactly ZERO experience doing real organizing work on the ground, either in her native Australia or in the US." More at https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/enough-nonsense-the-left-does-not-collaborate-with-fascists/
That article reads as opinionated tirade which doesn't persuade me of anything except that I don't agree with the author.
I've never seen Caitlin advocate for allying with fascists.
My question to Joe is , have you read the ur-text of "cancel culture," by Herbert Marcuse , on "repressive tolerance," ? https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html . Left-liberals such as David Spitz, in the democratic socialist quarterly , Dissent had major problems with its argument , as did others in the marxist tradition such as Alasdair MacIntyre, https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-end-of-marcuse/ , https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/pure-tolerance-a-critique-of-criticism/ .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critique_of_Pure_Tolerance#Reception .
More aligned with your pov is this, I assume.
"Today the Alt-Right, much like its precursor in the pre-9/11 New Right, is asserting a putative political need for a democratic society to maintain an absolute tolerance of abusive and even assaultive speech—as protected forms of “dissent.” It is now using the “charge of imperiling free speech … to silence oppressed and marginalized groups and to push back against their interests” (Stanley 2016). In opposition, Marcuse’s repressive tolerance essay called out in 1965 what is now more widely recognized today as “the free speech fallacy” (Stanley 2016). If we all have a de jure right to express any opinion in public, the de facto condition is that left opinions are usually marginalized and often suppressed, while Right-wing ones, which benefit the ruling class, are given free play. “This pure tolerance of sense and nonsense” practiced under the conditions prevailing in the United States today “cannot fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely protection of dissent” (Marcuse 1965, 94, 117). We need to stress this analysis of the false equivalence of reactionary and emancipatory speech, fascist and anti-fascist violence..." https://www.rpamag.org/2019/08/marcuses-relevance-today-violence-racism-and-the-critique-of-pure-tolerance
It's no longer the 1960s. The so-called "right" that you reference is not the ruling class today. Today's ruling class is the "corporate left" - leftist organizations and causes being used by big money and big government to keep the people fighting over identify politics vs. dealing with class issues and other problems. Among other things. They abuse notions of oppression and equity to justify their corporate and state-sponsored censorship. E.g., they get you focused on censoring "Nazis" when they are really about censoring any and all grassroots they aren't actively manipulating and controlling.
"Free speech is not a Get Out Of Jail Free Card people can play whenever they want to escape criticism or force others to listen to their terrible ideas." Since when does allowing someone to post on a social media platform become "forcing" someone to listen? What a lame reason to censor someone!
So basically, you advocate mob rule of big tech companies to force them to oust speech you don't like, which currently serves you - since these companies (for now) are primarily in alignment with your views and you agree with the mob. But should Facebook start to censor pro-Palestinian content, or censor your pet causes, you'd be singing a different tune and going on about how we can't let big, monolithic corporations control our speech.
Would you be OK with a mob of right-wing people demanding that Substack remove all pro-trans content since it harms children? Would you be OK if Substack caved in to that? Then it's not OK in the reverse. Don't tell me this is just about Nazis, because the people on your side are disingenuous and falsely conflate anyone who disagrees with current liberal orthodoxy as "far-right" or a "Nazi" or a "conspiracy theorist." Like you targeting Bari Weiss here. Ridiculous.
To folks in the progressive purity mob, Jimmy Dore is now a far-right conspiracy theorist, with Bill Maher coming up close behind. The purity tests the left now has for proper thought are becoming narrower and narrower, with heavier and heavier penalties. It's why progressives like me broke free, because the left is now mentally and emotionally stifling, with no room for disagreement.
Big tech censorship isn't just a private company issue, by the way. The US government was pressuring big tech companies during the pandemic to censor...and Pfizer was also pushing a censorship agenda as well. So the government is often involved, often in collusion with big companies with deep pockets...
And either way, we shouldn't let big tech determine what is true, what is not true, and what we can speak about - Facebook has gotten so bad it will even delete links from PRIVATE MESSAGES it doesn't like. If you think that's OK, you have completely lost any respect for free speech and privacy.
PS On the positive, you allow comments here from non-paying readers. 99% of progressive Substack publications do not, or shut off comments when they can't handle disagreement, from my experience.
There's a lot to your comments, so I'm going to break them down 1-by-1, but I won't have time to answer them all.
"Since when does allowing someone to post on a social media platform become "forcing" someone to listen?" - This was more a reference to the Bari Weiss-types who chastise college kids for not going to her speeches.
"Would you be OK with a mob of right-wing people demanding that Substack remove all pro-trans content since it harms children?"
I hear this argument a lot, and it's never persuasive. It basically comes down to, "If the left criticizes the Company X for hosting literal Nazis, the Right will pretend Leftists are equal to Nazis." It's ridiculous, and honestly is more of an indictment of rightists than me.
If you think trans rights bloggers are even remotely equivalent to those calling for a second Holocaust, you need to log off.
Some trans activists are actively calling for the death of TERFs. So...would you ban those trans activists calling for the death of TERFs along with those calling for another holocaust? If so, then that's consistent.
Call for violence are violation of TOS and should be removed.
That's a start with the consistency. But the issue is a bit more complex because the intention of Jonathan Katz et al is not to just remove "Nazis" calling for violence but anyone the mob deems to be a Nazi. So are you advocating for the removal of all Nazis, those labeled as Nazis, or only Nazis calling for violence? Are you OK with Nazis who don't call for violence to remain on Substack?
Well you're talking to me, so I'm not going to speak for Katz or anyone else. If you want their opinion, go talk to them.
As Nazism is inherently violent, any expression of its belief is a call for violence. They should all be removed. There's no such thing as a "non violent Nazi."
"So basically, you advocate mob rule of big tech companies to force them to oust speech you don't like, which currently serves you - since these companies (for now) are primarily in alignment with your views and you agree with the mob."
This is untrue. I'm a socialist. I believe these companies should be owned by the workers. I promise you, whatever alleged alignment I have with tech bros on something like gay rights, it pales in comparison to our disagreement that I don't think they should be profiting off the labor of others.
I'm in favor of worker-owned companies done voluntarily, not socialism by government control where the government owns the companies. So if worker-owned companies want to have clear conduct guidelines for their membership, along with a democratic process, that's fine, but what we have now are big megalithic tech corporations with zero accountability to the membership, no democracy, and no way to get redress of grievances much less any due process regarding content "moderation" (aka censorship).
So we should nationalize companies like FB and run them as utilities. Then we can solve these issues democratically.
About as likely to occur in the short to medium term , given the balance of forces in the political terrains, popular and legislative and executive, stacked against the broad left, as a dictatorship of the proletariat after the vanguard sectors of that class under the leadership of the PSL, DSA, WWP, PCUSA, WWP and FRSO unite in a mass "Party," and blow this rotten system to hell.
Re : https://www.versobooks.com/products/1840-parecon , as Oscar Wilde , who was a socialist quipped, "The problem with socialism is that it would take too many evenings."
No, that won't solve the issue - the US government was leading the charge with censorship during the pandemic due to regulatory capture - i.e., the FDA/CDC is filled with corporate cronies and politicians from both sides of the aisle get big bucks from big pharma. Instead, have the workers buy out Facebook but keep the government out of it.
Democratic control won't solve the issue? How so?
I have to ask, did you read it? All of your points are addressed in the article.