Hello, ladies and gentlemen!
Welcome to another episode of The Partisan. I am your host, Phisto Sobanii. On today’s show, we’ll be discussing the second part of my short series on free speech and expression. You can read Part I here.
Today I’m addressing the “other side” of this issue: the pro-censors. I hope to pull back the curtain on my voluminous criticism (especially on Notes!) and hopefully reach some folks here who might not otherwise listen. You see, now that the free speech debate is calming somewhat, now is the time to reach out and discuss in good faith. If you’re on my side, I hope it helps you think about the ideas more clearly. Doubly so if you are new to this kind of thing.
Long story short, I didn’t bring artillery for this one. Sit back and relax.
Before I go further, I want to define a term. For probably the first time in my Substack writing career I say the phrase “pro-censor” not as an insult but as simply the best phrase I can muster to describe what is absolutely the closest thing to an enemy I personally have. What is a pro-censor? Generally speaking, anyone that seeks to limit free speech or expression at Substack for any reason. We here at The Partisan believe the limits of speech and expression should be as expansive as possible because it is a good thing and allows us to reach our full potential as people. This allows for so-called “hate speech” and its various flavors of uncouth because you have to suffer a little bad for the far greater beauty of a free minded people. This position does not include things like credible threats of imminent violence or child pornography, because those are obviously not speech and already very bad. Make sense? Let’s move to the crux of the issue.
Growing up, the only way I ever got bullies to leave me alone was naked, unrestrained aggression. Twice that involved physical violence, while the third was a solely verbal public dressing down. Why am I talking about this in regards to speech? Let me say this as gently as I can: folks who value free speech and expression in the way I do see the “pro-censor” side as simply bullies. Now if that offends your sensibilities, kindly stay your feelings for just a moment and let me explain.
In the discussion over the past weeks you may have seen the phrase “natural rights” bandied about. When it comes to human rights, this is an important phrase you need to understand if you want to get why people get so up in arms about speech and expression, especially when it seems like they’re just defending hate speech or “Nazis” or whatever else you might say about it.
Natural rights are things that make us human. Things that make us people. Stuff that is intrinsic to the human condition. Some say they come from God. Before you dismiss that out of hand, simply pause and consider the implication: we put the the same weight on natural rights as we do something like gravity. It is simply a fact of the world as it exists, and you can’t deny them any more than you can fly by flapping your arms up and down.
Free speech and expression are some of the most important natural rights indeed, and so if you’ve understood what I said in the paragraph above stop and consider the following. If someone considers free speech and expression important in this natural right kind of way, even speech you don’t like or might even call “hate speech,” does it begin to make sense why they get upset like they do? Why they get so “mad?”
You see, pro-censors, this is what I mean when I said here you were “attacking us.” Telling someone like me I can’t think or speak or discuss anything and everything I want in the manner I choose is virtually the same as putting your hands around my neck and squeezing. Free speech and expression are natural rights, the same as breathing the air or hugging our loved ones. By trying to limit my thinking and speaking you are trying to limit what I am as a human being. I won’t let you do that. We won’t let you do that.
To put it another way, humans are explorers. In fact, I think that is our highest and best purpose. Nothing in the universe will keep me on the shore of my own mind; not you, not your friends, not the government, not even myself.
Nothing. Push the issue too far, and we’ll have the other version of this conversation.
Let’s circle around back to the bullies. The debate around free speech and expression has only gotten hotter over the years, and promises to only continue so for the foreseeable future. Right now, things are actually pretty calm. If it doesn’t seem like it, I can only suggest you read more history about times such as these and see for yourself what I mean. Check out the French Revolution, for starters, and see just how far we have to go before something like the “nation’s razor” comes into play.
Pro-censors, all of us are peace-loving folk. We don’t want to fight. We don’t want violence. We’re hoping you will eventually come to your senses and see reason, be persuaded, and understand the greater perspective of what’s going on here. Let me double down on this: there is a long, long way to go before this discussion even begins to approach something that could be described as possibly unpleasant.
What happens in that regard is up to one person and one person alone: you.
Stop and think about what you’re asking, what you’re demanding, and try to set aside that passion and talk to us. Learn from us. Read more, talk less. Understand the forces of nature you’re trying to upend and see for yourself why that’s just not going to work. It’s not too late, and if this piece gives even one pro-censor pause, I will have considered it worthwhile to write.
Somewhere, something amazing is waiting to be discovered. Come with us and let’s go find it together.
Thanks for reading!
Let me know your thoughts in the comments. I love engaging with readers, and these pieces are a means to that end. If you think this was worth your time, please share via Restack or personal recommendation. That means a lot to me.
If you want to support my work, kindly consider a paid subscription. I work cheap!
Hello!
There will be order in this comments section. The ban hammer is hot and ready, so don't fuck it up.
"Natural rights are ... a fact of the world". If they are not a fact, then doesn't your whole defence of free speech collapse, @phistosobanii?
Edit: I've just read your comment about the first 10 books in your library. All the ones I've read on that list argue that some moral propositions (such as "Natural rights are a fact of the world") are true and have the properties not relevantly different from that of ordinary non-moral facts and properties. Just as stones are stones, you can touch them, taste them and see them, so "Natural rights are [also] a fact of the world", as are Charlton Heston's tablets of stone brought down from Mount Sinai.
Trouble is you can also hear them when they crash to the ground and smash.