The reaction to the Harper's Letter is a painful thing to revisit for me. As a labor guy, who has fought hard to so that people can stay working even if they're doing/being something that other people don't like (like being gay, Muslim, Communist, etc), it was shocking to see the complacency with the incidents described in the letter. As if it was okay to fire people for wrong think (or even misunderstood speech) and why would these writers speak out about it.
(which was typical of several journalists) made me look at journalists in a very different way than I had previously. The continuing anger at the Harper's people for being right is a fascinating phenomenon.
"Where are the Harpers Letter signers I tried to cancel five minutes ago? I'm in trouble and I want them to be the bigger person! But... but I still claim the moral high ground over the bigger person! That's how it works right???"
“People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right—especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.” Thomas Sowell
“A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world” .......... Oscar Wilde
I think part of how people resolve their cognitive dissonance is by assuming that nobody could possibly oppose their initiatives for principled reasons, but for some hidden, nefarious motive. Then, enter confirmation bias.
So, if someone once expressed dismay at a campus speaker being shouted down, but then doesn't speak up within 30 seconds after an RA takes down a pro-Hamas poster a college student had posted in the hallway, then that person never really believed in free speech, and is just a bigot/hypocrite.
Which I suppose might play to their like-minded readers and get some likes. But it doesn't bring anyone closer to truth.
We can thank our "educational" system for the utter lack of comprehension of just what free speech is, and isn't. As a Canadian, with no First Amendment to protect me, I fear even more for the rights of people to express themselves, particularly as the (insert preferred pejorative here) who runs my country continues to tear it apart with new legislation, definitions of "hate crimes", and so forth.
Section two of the Charter protects free expression in Canada. The jurisprudence surrounding the section isn’t as robust as first amendment jurisprudence in the US but it is substantial.
Bari Weiss is only for free speech when she likes what is being said. That does more harm than good because it gives all the statist censorship advocates ammunition.
Yes and no - Bari Weiss is hugely inconsistent on what speech she thinks should be protected. On one hand, I'm pretty sure she came out against the congressional Antisemitism Awareness Act, as it is blatantly censorious even if it aligns with her views on what constitutes antisemitism, so that's a principled stance. On the other hand, the Free Press has endorsed very old-school radical feminist views supporting the censorship of porn, full stop. I don't think that claiming some kind of free speech-absolutist position while demanding the removal of such protections for porn just because it offends her socially conserivative sensibilities about sexual morality is exactly a consistent position.
Porn is not speech in any meaningful way. It's perfectly reasonable to defend free speech while opposing porn. That's not my, er, position (I have no issues with porn in general), but it's not inconsistent or hypocritical.
"Porn is not speech in any meaningful way." That's an absoltely arbitrary statement. Porn absolutely is a form of expression with content that expresses ideas every bit as much as reglar movies do. The fact that porn expressed an ideas about sex was the reason that the courts struck down Catharine MacKinnon's antiporn "civil rights law" in Booksellers v. Hudnut and why the obscenity 'exception' to free speech protections has become so severely limited.
The argument made by antiporn activists is pretty much identical to other 'progressive' arguments against full free speech protections - according to them, porn is an inherently 'harmful' form of expression, specifically, one that targets women and diminishes their full participation in society. That's not far from why trans activists would argue that someone like JK Rowling. I think it's more than a little inconsistent (or maybe simple bigotry) to demand an identity-based carveout to free speech protections when it comes to cis women and oppose it when it comes to trans people. My position is to oppose such carveouts for any identity group or culture war faction.
On what point am I not focused on here, dearie? And what's with the personal dig about "hobby"?
Look, I think "free speech absolutist, but we should ban porn", which is a really common view in centrist spaces, is a glaring contradiction. And not one that can be easily explained away with social conservative cliches like "porn doesn't actually contain any ideas, therefore it's not speech".
I'd have to dig, but there are plenty of examples of The Free Press supporting the views of Julie Bindel, Gail Dines, and Louise Perry on the subject, all of whom are committed porn prohibitionists. Nancy Rommelman even wrote a glowing description of Gail Dines as "pro-free speech" without bothering to do any research at all into Dines background, which is anything but supportive of free speech.
In general, TFP has been very propagandistic in their advocacy of old-school radical feminist views, in "Witch Trials of Rowling" giving a very superficial and bowdlerized presentation of radfem anti-trans activism in the 1970s and 1980s. If they'd given a more honest presentation of the arguments that writers like Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond were making at the time, it might have made the trans side seem a bit less unreasonable in their arguments against the first generation of GC feminists.
The fact that the fp publishes a particular voice means that Bari “supports” that voice? I’m thinking no, but can’t argue any facts one way or another. Or maybe it comes down to what “supports” means in this context. Does it mean “agree with those views”? Or does it simply mean “publishes”?
Just a bit curious, do you believe that Donald Trump represents a real threat to democracy, as mentioned in the Harper’s letter? How would that be different from the current administration’s lawfare?
I personally believe that you're being honest and these complaints are made in bad faith, but that's because of "the whom, not the what". Is it possible to link to the tweets directly so your audience can gauge for themselves whether the criticisms are valid?
Unfortunately that’s more time/energy than I’m about to dedicate to a free blog post but nothing’s stopping you from investigating this to your heart’s content by searching the words “Harper’s letter” on Twitter
My objection to unrestrained free speech is obvious - if any and all self-expression is allowed under free speech, there's no rule of law. Anyone can shut down I-95 if they want to say prayers in the middle of traffic. Anyone can glue themselves to your driveway if you don't use an EV. And if you think democracy ends if we don't let them, you're talking nonsense. Nobody signed a letter supporting white nationalists in Charlottesville b/c nobody thought there were good people on both sides. If Voltaire had lived to see his French Revolution, they'd have lopped off his head.
Unrestrained free speech does not mean breaking the law. Blocking traffic, gluing oneself to other people's property, these are crimes. Speech has nothing to do with it.
There are some rules constraining illegal speech, but not many. The bigger problem is conflating any form of self-expression with "free speech." Like drag queens in school libraries, and urban terrorists threatening to burn cities if jury verdicts don't go their way. This type of mob violence is an existential threat as it pushes our corporate structures, our national media, and our governance to bend toward the self-destruction of wokes, gays, and feminists. Which dooms our society to inevitable collapse. For example - abortion is health care. Killing babies is health care? And fools accept that w/o question?
Women's Lib, queers, & woke are an alliance bent on destroying civilization. The world as we know it was built by heterosexual white men. It is a patriarchal system based on family as the purpose of existence. In this system, men are head of household, breadwinners, & decision-makers for the entire family. Queers in dresses are deliberate contempt & mockery of patriarchal law & order. Like pissing on the Constitution. Like destroying everything we've ever built.
That's why I said "if"! Also, I should probably have said, NYT Pitchbot *thinks* it is a satire account, but reasonable people may disagree on whether it does in fact achieve this
Fair enough and thanks for the clarification – since quitting twitter about a year and a half ago my mental health has greatly improved, but my contextual understanding of the some references has become a little fuzzy.
The reaction to the Harper's Letter is a painful thing to revisit for me. As a labor guy, who has fought hard to so that people can stay working even if they're doing/being something that other people don't like (like being gay, Muslim, Communist, etc), it was shocking to see the complacency with the incidents described in the letter. As if it was okay to fire people for wrong think (or even misunderstood speech) and why would these writers speak out about it.
Seeing reactions like this one
https://x.com/lindaholmes/status/1280562327406985218
(which was typical of several journalists) made me look at journalists in a very different way than I had previously. The continuing anger at the Harper's people for being right is a fascinating phenomenon.
"Where are the Harpers Letter signers I tried to cancel five minutes ago? I'm in trouble and I want them to be the bigger person! But... but I still claim the moral high ground over the bigger person! That's how it works right???"
🎯
Well put, as usual.
Especially the last paragraph.
Nice post, Kat
“People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right—especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.” Thomas Sowell
“A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world” .......... Oscar Wilde
I think part of how people resolve their cognitive dissonance is by assuming that nobody could possibly oppose their initiatives for principled reasons, but for some hidden, nefarious motive. Then, enter confirmation bias.
So, if someone once expressed dismay at a campus speaker being shouted down, but then doesn't speak up within 30 seconds after an RA takes down a pro-Hamas poster a college student had posted in the hallway, then that person never really believed in free speech, and is just a bigot/hypocrite.
Which I suppose might play to their like-minded readers and get some likes. But it doesn't bring anyone closer to truth.
We can thank our "educational" system for the utter lack of comprehension of just what free speech is, and isn't. As a Canadian, with no First Amendment to protect me, I fear even more for the rights of people to express themselves, particularly as the (insert preferred pejorative here) who runs my country continues to tear it apart with new legislation, definitions of "hate crimes", and so forth.
Sic Transit Gloria Canada....
Section two of the Charter protects free expression in Canada. The jurisprudence surrounding the section isn’t as robust as first amendment jurisprudence in the US but it is substantial.
Bari Weiss is only for free speech when she likes what is being said. That does more harm than good because it gives all the statist censorship advocates ammunition.
Yes and no - Bari Weiss is hugely inconsistent on what speech she thinks should be protected. On one hand, I'm pretty sure she came out against the congressional Antisemitism Awareness Act, as it is blatantly censorious even if it aligns with her views on what constitutes antisemitism, so that's a principled stance. On the other hand, the Free Press has endorsed very old-school radical feminist views supporting the censorship of porn, full stop. I don't think that claiming some kind of free speech-absolutist position while demanding the removal of such protections for porn just because it offends her socially conserivative sensibilities about sexual morality is exactly a consistent position.
Porn is not speech in any meaningful way. It's perfectly reasonable to defend free speech while opposing porn. That's not my, er, position (I have no issues with porn in general), but it's not inconsistent or hypocritical.
"Porn is not speech in any meaningful way." That's an absoltely arbitrary statement. Porn absolutely is a form of expression with content that expresses ideas every bit as much as reglar movies do. The fact that porn expressed an ideas about sex was the reason that the courts struck down Catharine MacKinnon's antiporn "civil rights law" in Booksellers v. Hudnut and why the obscenity 'exception' to free speech protections has become so severely limited.
The argument made by antiporn activists is pretty much identical to other 'progressive' arguments against full free speech protections - according to them, porn is an inherently 'harmful' form of expression, specifically, one that targets women and diminishes their full participation in society. That's not far from why trans activists would argue that someone like JK Rowling. I think it's more than a little inconsistent (or maybe simple bigotry) to demand an identity-based carveout to free speech protections when it comes to cis women and oppose it when it comes to trans people. My position is to oppose such carveouts for any identity group or culture war faction.
Oi, put your “hobby” away for a bit and focus on the point.
On what point am I not focused on here, dearie? And what's with the personal dig about "hobby"?
Look, I think "free speech absolutist, but we should ban porn", which is a really common view in centrist spaces, is a glaring contradiction. And not one that can be easily explained away with social conservative cliches like "porn doesn't actually contain any ideas, therefore it's not speech".
Can you provide a specific example of FP supporting porn censorship, because I don't recall seeing it on the site?
I'd have to dig, but there are plenty of examples of The Free Press supporting the views of Julie Bindel, Gail Dines, and Louise Perry on the subject, all of whom are committed porn prohibitionists. Nancy Rommelman even wrote a glowing description of Gail Dines as "pro-free speech" without bothering to do any research at all into Dines background, which is anything but supportive of free speech.
In general, TFP has been very propagandistic in their advocacy of old-school radical feminist views, in "Witch Trials of Rowling" giving a very superficial and bowdlerized presentation of radfem anti-trans activism in the 1970s and 1980s. If they'd given a more honest presentation of the arguments that writers like Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond were making at the time, it might have made the trans side seem a bit less unreasonable in their arguments against the first generation of GC feminists.
The fact that the fp publishes a particular voice means that Bari “supports” that voice? I’m thinking no, but can’t argue any facts one way or another. Or maybe it comes down to what “supports” means in this context. Does it mean “agree with those views”? Or does it simply mean “publishes”?
Poor Noam, lol
The one time Noam Chomsky and Bari Weiss presented a unified front!
But wait, where is Greg Lukianoff? That slacker.... ;)
OMG even Cornel West. XD
Just a bit curious, do you believe that Donald Trump represents a real threat to democracy, as mentioned in the Harper’s letter? How would that be different from the current administration’s lawfare?
I personally believe that you're being honest and these complaints are made in bad faith, but that's because of "the whom, not the what". Is it possible to link to the tweets directly so your audience can gauge for themselves whether the criticisms are valid?
Unfortunately that’s more time/energy than I’m about to dedicate to a free blog post but nothing’s stopping you from investigating this to your heart’s content by searching the words “Harper’s letter” on Twitter
Fair enough. It's not your job to educate me.
My objection to unrestrained free speech is obvious - if any and all self-expression is allowed under free speech, there's no rule of law. Anyone can shut down I-95 if they want to say prayers in the middle of traffic. Anyone can glue themselves to your driveway if you don't use an EV. And if you think democracy ends if we don't let them, you're talking nonsense. Nobody signed a letter supporting white nationalists in Charlottesville b/c nobody thought there were good people on both sides. If Voltaire had lived to see his French Revolution, they'd have lopped off his head.
Unrestrained free speech does not mean breaking the law. Blocking traffic, gluing oneself to other people's property, these are crimes. Speech has nothing to do with it.
There are some rules constraining illegal speech, but not many. The bigger problem is conflating any form of self-expression with "free speech." Like drag queens in school libraries, and urban terrorists threatening to burn cities if jury verdicts don't go their way. This type of mob violence is an existential threat as it pushes our corporate structures, our national media, and our governance to bend toward the self-destruction of wokes, gays, and feminists. Which dooms our society to inevitable collapse. For example - abortion is health care. Killing babies is health care? And fools accept that w/o question?
I’m trying to understand how drag queens reading books out loud is equivalent to mob violence …
Women's Lib, queers, & woke are an alliance bent on destroying civilization. The world as we know it was built by heterosexual white men. It is a patriarchal system based on family as the purpose of existence. In this system, men are head of household, breadwinners, & decision-makers for the entire family. Queers in dresses are deliberate contempt & mockery of patriarchal law & order. Like pissing on the Constitution. Like destroying everything we've ever built.
Are you for real? LOL
What didn't you understand?
Same with incitement to imminent harm.
Voltaire started the gears for the French Revolution.
Isn’t the NYT Pitchbot a satire account?
Yes, but if you think this undermines the point of this post then you have failed to understand what it satirizes
Kat, I 100% agree with the point of this post! I was just confused by the inclusion of that and it made me wonder if I misunderstood what NYTP was.
That's why I said "if"! Also, I should probably have said, NYT Pitchbot *thinks* it is a satire account, but reasonable people may disagree on whether it does in fact achieve this
Fair enough and thanks for the clarification – since quitting twitter about a year and a half ago my mental health has greatly improved, but my contextual understanding of the some references has become a little fuzzy.
Anyway, love your writing!