Understanding how confrontation in these things is constructive escapes your followers I think. Why not address the perpetuation of hate and stupidity in the average citizen?
That's what I did by writing this letter in the first place.
Calls for censorship are rooted in exactly that: hate and stupidity. Look at history, outside of maybe war you will not find a single example where censorship of anything, even hate speech, did any good.
In the case of the actual historical Nazis and the Communists, it lead to mountains of corpses.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that shutting down hitlers rhetoric or Stalins advocacy of allowing entire populations starve to death only would have made things worse? I would like clarification if you don’t mind. Thanks
I honestly don’t think any of the signers give a shit about free speech, until its absence affects them or their cause. Even then they don’t care about it but will use the constitution as a weapon to get what they want and immediately deny the next person the very same right.
"I pledge allegiance to the United States of Stasi, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under surveillance, divisible, with liberty a thing of the past for all."
Good evening, Phisto. Thank you for bringing more attention to this important subject. I am grateful for your engagement with our fellow substackers on the question of free speech and substack's terms of service and whether there is any daylight between the two. My understanding is that the signatories of the SAN letter are concerned that somewhere right out in the open on substack there are contributors espousing Nazi ideology. I myself haven't seen any, but then I have only seen one of the signatories of the SAN letter's substacks also. My opinion is that bad ideas and bad opinions are best right out in the open where they can be debated, laughed at and ridiculed so as to take their power away. Thank you for taking on this important public service.
"My opinion is that bad ideas and bad opinions are best right out in the open where they can be debated, laughed at and ridiculed so as to take their power away."
Yes it's called the Counterspeech Doctrine. It has prevailed in US jurisprudence regarding defense and protection of the First Amendment.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” - Justice Brandeis
It is sadly shocking to see the ignorance of this doctrine that seems to have spread among some within a very short time
All I see from the righteous anti-free speech gasbags is the sheer snobbery and indignation that they can't control the narrative, like the scummy journos they are. They can't disable replies, so they come in after being tagged, act like they are superior beings, get dragged like they deserve, and then pretend they came in good faith.
What's a Nazi? whatever they say it is. Reminds me of the "punch a fascist" craze from a while back. "If you don't want to get punched, stop being a fascist. Oh, and a fascist is whatever we say it is."
The clowns spewing the punch a (insert pinko trigger word here) have never punched anyone in their life, but have probably been on the receiving end of a few. Probably some swirlies too.
Nicely said Phisto. Exactly who the hell are these tutting schoolmarms? Well schoolmarms? Who the hell do you think you are? Speak up! We can't hear your tiny cluster of tiny little tut-tutting voices over the deafening roar of our actual freedom.
If you publish newsletters through Substack, you are a Publisher. If you subscribe to Publisher newsletters, you are a Reader. Readers subscribe to newsletters directly through the Publisher’s subdomain on Substack.
A Publisher may offer their newsletters for free or for a subscription fee, to be determined in the Publisher’s discretion. Readers may choose to subscribe to Publisher newsletters on Substack and agree to incur any applicable subscription fees.
Publishers will set prices for their newsletters, and may change the prices at their sole discretion through their Publisher account, though no price changes shall apply retroactively.
In the event that a Reader has a dispute with a Publisher, you agree that Substack is under no obligation to become involved other than to direct any inquiries regarding a Publisher’s newsletter to the appropriate Publisher pursuant to the Publisher Agreement.” —Substack tos
I probably should, but I can't, take any of these censorious twerps seriously, for a whole slew of reasons.
1 - These arguments have been had already. The censors lost.
Read the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, or Texas v. Johnson, or the "Fuck the Draft" case, or even the series of pornography cases. SCOTUS gave up on the notion that it could police speech in any principled way.
2 - The Censors always argue like that Harvard, grad-student, d-bag archetype in "Good Will Hunting". e.g. They can all wrongly quote Schenck to say "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater!1!!" HOWEVER....
3a - Worse than that d-bag Harvard guy, they haven't even read Schenck. (First off, the complete, correct line is actually "FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater". Kinda key omission.)
3b - They don't know what Schenck was about (socialists distributing pamphlets and draft protesters over the conscription for WW1).
3c - They have no idea about the Progressive Era of the Supreme Court and just how many truly abysmal decisions were produced (including by Holmes) out of those Courts.
3d - No one who has finished the ABA requisite two semesters of Con Law looks at Schenck as anything other than an abysmal opinion already relegated to the dustbin of history. I dare someone to find all of the Supreme Court and appellate court decisions citing Schenck in the last 50 years.
And yet here they come again, screeching and braying with as much intellectual dishonesty and rhetorical foot-stamping immaturity as possible.
4 - They never acknowledge the idiotic unstated premise of their entire argument (that's probably why): That the lumpenproletariat simply can't be trusted to hear Nazi messaging without turning into Nazis. Their fragile brains are incapable of resisting the call. That's what got Hitler into power, the censorists believe. The Little Corporal just whispered the magic Nazi words in the right incantation and *poof*, the Germans just all became Nazis.
5 - Talk about an unconscious confession. Yikes. They think everyone is as weak-minded and weak-willed as they are.
Thank you for providing the list of newsletters promoting censorship. I had received two SAN emails from publications I was subscribed too. I promptly unsubscribed from both.
Going through your list today, I found one more censorship supporter, so was able to promptly unsubscribe from that one as well.
I have no desire to waste my time reading cowardly and submissive writers who are longing to live under totalitarianism.
The would-be censors are all about signalling their superiority. Like a kind of journalistic master race, if you will 😜
Those from the mainstream are used to full-spectrum acquiescence. They are certainly not used to being challenged. That may prove fatal for them.
May?
Let's do our part to rhetorically up that certainty, shall we?
They aren't having an easy time of it for sure. And nor should they, calling for censorship.
Understanding how confrontation in these things is constructive escapes your followers I think. Why not address the perpetuation of hate and stupidity in the average citizen?
That's what I did by writing this letter in the first place.
Calls for censorship are rooted in exactly that: hate and stupidity. Look at history, outside of maybe war you will not find a single example where censorship of anything, even hate speech, did any good.
In the case of the actual historical Nazis and the Communists, it lead to mountains of corpses.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying that shutting down hitlers rhetoric or Stalins advocacy of allowing entire populations starve to death only would have made things worse? I would like clarification if you don’t mind. Thanks
I'll clarify with a question.
Find a time in history, outside of war, where censorship WAS a net good? Not COULD'VE been a net good, but actually demonstrably WAS.
You won't.
I actually agree with you here. But I’m not talking censorship. I advocating a moderator to reduce what objectively can be likely to cause harm.
I like being challenged. Thanks
I honestly don’t think any of the signers give a shit about free speech, until its absence affects them or their cause. Even then they don’t care about it but will use the constitution as a weapon to get what they want and immediately deny the next person the very same right.
Found on internet:
"I pledge allegiance to the United States of Stasi, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under surveillance, divisible, with liberty a thing of the past for all."
Good evening, Phisto. Thank you for bringing more attention to this important subject. I am grateful for your engagement with our fellow substackers on the question of free speech and substack's terms of service and whether there is any daylight between the two. My understanding is that the signatories of the SAN letter are concerned that somewhere right out in the open on substack there are contributors espousing Nazi ideology. I myself haven't seen any, but then I have only seen one of the signatories of the SAN letter's substacks also. My opinion is that bad ideas and bad opinions are best right out in the open where they can be debated, laughed at and ridiculed so as to take their power away. Thank you for taking on this important public service.
"My opinion is that bad ideas and bad opinions are best right out in the open where they can be debated, laughed at and ridiculed so as to take their power away."
Hear, hear! Well said :)
That’s a reasoned argument actually
Yes it's called the Counterspeech Doctrine. It has prevailed in US jurisprudence regarding defense and protection of the First Amendment.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” - Justice Brandeis
It is sadly shocking to see the ignorance of this doctrine that seems to have spread among some within a very short time
It’s my pleasure. :)
How big are their audiences? Willing to bet they are negligible and substack would lose minimal revenue if they left.
Did you see the Google doc I linked?
It’s certainly less than the signers of Elle’s letter (fucking Racket, Public, AND Free Press???).
I am just a reader but I am with you.
It means more than you know.
All I see from the righteous anti-free speech gasbags is the sheer snobbery and indignation that they can't control the narrative, like the scummy journos they are. They can't disable replies, so they come in after being tagged, act like they are superior beings, get dragged like they deserve, and then pretend they came in good faith.
What's a Nazi? whatever they say it is. Reminds me of the "punch a fascist" craze from a while back. "If you don't want to get punched, stop being a fascist. Oh, and a fascist is whatever we say it is."
What a bunch of clowns.
The clowns spewing the punch a (insert pinko trigger word here) have never punched anyone in their life, but have probably been on the receiving end of a few. Probably some swirlies too.
Nicely said Phisto. Exactly who the hell are these tutting schoolmarms? Well schoolmarms? Who the hell do you think you are? Speak up! We can't hear your tiny cluster of tiny little tut-tutting voices over the deafening roar of our actual freedom.
“Paid Subscriptions on Substack
If you publish newsletters through Substack, you are a Publisher. If you subscribe to Publisher newsletters, you are a Reader. Readers subscribe to newsletters directly through the Publisher’s subdomain on Substack.
A Publisher may offer their newsletters for free or for a subscription fee, to be determined in the Publisher’s discretion. Readers may choose to subscribe to Publisher newsletters on Substack and agree to incur any applicable subscription fees.
Publishers will set prices for their newsletters, and may change the prices at their sole discretion through their Publisher account, though no price changes shall apply retroactively.
In the event that a Reader has a dispute with a Publisher, you agree that Substack is under no obligation to become involved other than to direct any inquiries regarding a Publisher’s newsletter to the appropriate Publisher pursuant to the Publisher Agreement.” —Substack tos
"BE ADULTS AND HANDLE IT FFS."
Lazy Substackers Against Nazis (LaSAgNa)
I wonder if any of them replaced 'exoduses' with 'exodi' or a better-sounding synonym, but then... I'm lazy, too.
Foul vermin! How dare you sully such delight.
Wow
I probably should, but I can't, take any of these censorious twerps seriously, for a whole slew of reasons.
1 - These arguments have been had already. The censors lost.
Read the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, or Texas v. Johnson, or the "Fuck the Draft" case, or even the series of pornography cases. SCOTUS gave up on the notion that it could police speech in any principled way.
2 - The Censors always argue like that Harvard, grad-student, d-bag archetype in "Good Will Hunting". e.g. They can all wrongly quote Schenck to say "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater!1!!" HOWEVER....
3a - Worse than that d-bag Harvard guy, they haven't even read Schenck. (First off, the complete, correct line is actually "FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater". Kinda key omission.)
3b - They don't know what Schenck was about (socialists distributing pamphlets and draft protesters over the conscription for WW1).
3c - They have no idea about the Progressive Era of the Supreme Court and just how many truly abysmal decisions were produced (including by Holmes) out of those Courts.
3d - No one who has finished the ABA requisite two semesters of Con Law looks at Schenck as anything other than an abysmal opinion already relegated to the dustbin of history. I dare someone to find all of the Supreme Court and appellate court decisions citing Schenck in the last 50 years.
And yet here they come again, screeching and braying with as much intellectual dishonesty and rhetorical foot-stamping immaturity as possible.
4 - They never acknowledge the idiotic unstated premise of their entire argument (that's probably why): That the lumpenproletariat simply can't be trusted to hear Nazi messaging without turning into Nazis. Their fragile brains are incapable of resisting the call. That's what got Hitler into power, the censorists believe. The Little Corporal just whispered the magic Nazi words in the right incantation and *poof*, the Germans just all became Nazis.
5 - Talk about an unconscious confession. Yikes. They think everyone is as weak-minded and weak-willed as they are.
Thank you for providing the list of newsletters promoting censorship. I had received two SAN emails from publications I was subscribed too. I promptly unsubscribed from both.
Going through your list today, I found one more censorship supporter, so was able to promptly unsubscribe from that one as well.
I have no desire to waste my time reading cowardly and submissive writers who are longing to live under totalitarianism.
I live to serve, sir.
Excellent essay. Someone telling you that what you say or think is wrong and you don't have a RIGHT to voice your thoughts freely is hate in itself!
Thank you for this. I lack the restraint to engage with Jonathan Katz.
If even half of your students are inspired by your beliefs it’s a good day for America.
That's quite the wall of shame.