I agree. But this goes in both directions. You can't claim to support free expression while saying that certain forms of speech are unacceptable. It is self-contradictory. Yet that's what harper's does. It criticizes certain forms of speech (criticism) while claiming to uphold the mantle of free expression. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not making this claim; I'm claiming that it's inconsistent with free speech ideals. I'm not working to prevent anyone from expressing speech which isn't consistent with free speech ideals, and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.
All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.
> and I'm certainly not trying to get anyone fired for their anti-free-speech ideals.
I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
The ideal that we don't try to suppress speech we disagree with, but rather we encourage it to debate it.
> Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.
You're confusing an idea with its expression. There's no inconsistency between free speech ideals and criticizing the idea that speech should be restricted. However, it would be inconsistent to suggest that someone oughtn't express that idea and especially to try to actively prevent someone from expressing it. In other words, anyone welcome to express a belief that censorship is a good thing, but I'm not violating free speech ideals by expressing disagreeing with them; quite the opposite!
> joshuamorton 25 minutes ago | parent | on: Blog Anonymously
Which ideals? The ideal that speech should be free from criticism is self-contradictory. Criticism itself is speech, and so the claim that speech should be free from criticism is itself a condemnation of forms of speech.
All we can settle for is that no speech is unlawful. Because of that, I don't claim to support any particular "ideal of free speech". None of them are resolvable without contradiction.
> I don't believe I've seen anyone fired solely for their abstract support for free expression. Care to give examples.
You misunderstood my post. I was certainly not arguing that anyone has been fired for expressing abstract support for free speech. Rather, I was saying criticizing the idea of restricting speech is not inconsistent with free speech ideals, but rather trying to stop someone from expressing their desire for speech restrictions (and especially by trying to get them fired) would be inconsistent with free speech ideals. However, no one is trying to stop anyone from expressing their preferences for speech restrictions and certainly no one is trying to get anyone fired for expressing those preferences.
Restricting in what way though? Formal restrictions: laws, assuredly this is inconsistent. But if the "restriction" not a formal restriction, but instead a reaction to criticism, then this is a meta-criticism of criticism, and that is counter to those ideals, because criticism itself is speech.
https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/liability-and-insurance/to...
> For example, Adam could refuse to do business with Bill after learning that Bill has a contract or business relationship with an organization that Adam finds morally distasteful. Adam knows that his business is worth more to Bill than the other organization's and that his refusal to deal is substantially certain to cause Bill to terminate his contractual or business relationship with the other organization. Since his motivation is not improper, Bill's actions would not satisfy a claim of tortious interference by the other organization.
> On the other hand, if Adam means to punish the other organization or put them out of business by taking the advantages of their relationship with Bill away, it is more likely that a tortious interference has occurred.
But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.
There's no evidence that Adam and the targeted business are in competition. Having intent to harm is sufficient to be a relevant factor.
> But you can't sue <the collection of 20,000 twitter users> for collectively boycotting a business for doing a thing they disapprove of. If Sleeping Giants is immune to Tortious Interference claims, so is pretty much everyone else in this context.
That's also not an example of cancellation that we've been talking about in this thread, so that's irrelevant.
I don't even think that is true. In fact in the overwhelming number of cases cited that I have seen the power dynamic seems to be the other way around.
In other words, it's about holding people with more power/privilege/status to account.
>There's no clear definition for when something becomes "a culture of cancellation"
I agree, which is why I think it's wrong to say that we do live in such a culture.
>but a lot of people are reporting that they are afraid to run afoul of the progressive party line for fear of repercussions.
I have (some) sympathy for that feeling, but I think most of the time it's unjustified. Like there's some "woke mob" who's coming to cancel you for not realising you're using the wrong pronouns to refer to somebody or something. That... just doesn't happen.
>Of course no one is talking about "calling your interviewer a cunt and not getting hired" when they talk about "cancel culture". Name one prominent instance wherein this happened and it was widely condemned as "cancel culture". This seems highly disingenuous.
I'm not saying that has actually ever happened. It's an absurd scenario - that was the point - but I concede I may have gone too far.
The person I was replying to asserted that "if speech has consequences that are administered outside the law, then it's not really free". Insulting an interview panel is an example of where it would be entirely reasonable for there to be consequences administered outside the law.
>“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” > >—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut
That just re-enforces my point. Instead of appealing to authority, can you explain WHY is it the matrix of nearly every other form of freedom. HOW is it the matrix for nearly every other form of freedom?
In Europe we have a comprehensive rights framework in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights[0]. The Convention includes, amongst others, the right to life (Article 2), the right to a respect for a private and family life (Article 8), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14).
None of these strictly have a dependency on freedom of expression (Article 10).
One of the principles of the ECHR is that rights should not be wielded as to undermine the others (Article 17) and courts must balance rights against each other if they're naturally in competition with each other.
I think the American "free speech over everything else" fundamentally stems from the fact that the US doesn't really have (m)any other fundamental rights. When all you have is a hammer...
[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_P...
> We really, really aren't.
Perhaps it would be better to say that there is a lot of powerful people who are working very hard to create such a culture, but they haven't yet fully achieved their mission. There's no clear definition for when something becomes "a culture of cancellation", but a lot of people are reporting that they are afraid to run afoul of the progressive party line for fear of repercussions. There are of course plenty of people who don't have this fear because they are better protected from progressive reach (either because their industry isn't overwhelmingly progressive or because they have enough power to be okay if the mob comes for them).
> I can't go in to a job interview and call the panel a bunch of cunts and then expect to be hired. That's a consequence of speech "administered outside the law". Does this mean there's no free speech? No, of course it doesn't.
Of course no one is talking about "calling your interviewer a cunt and not getting hired" when they talk about "cancel culture". Name one prominent instance wherein this happened and it was widely condemned as "cancel culture". This seems highly disingenuous.
When people talk about "cancel culture", they're talking about things like:
* a journalist is forced to repent for interview a black person who is happy about the BLM movement but wishes there was more concern about the daily non-police-perpetrated violence in his community
* a data scientist loses his job because he cited a prominent (black) academic's research about the efficacy of nonviolent and violent protests
* a utility company employee loses his job for accidentally making the "OK sign" without even knowing that the left was trolled into considering it to be a white power symbol
* https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/128148065056698777...
> I find it interminably frustrating that people (moreso on the right, and moreso in America, but neither exclusively) hold free speech above pretty much everything else. People have more than ONE right.
“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”
—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut