I agree with all of the points made here, in general, about maintaining a free speech culture even when individuals say transgressive, foolish, and ridiculous things, and even celebrate violence. Our First Amendment guarantees a very wide swath of free expression short of First Amendment violations of true threats, defamations/slander, and incitements to immediate violence.
However, I probably have a few 'bad takes' here, given that you've cited Vivek Ramaswamy, who's not my reliable guide to free speech or much of anything else, and who's only recently shown much interest in civics or politics or working with divergent perspectives--seems to be a trend with some of the technology entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley who've suddenly discovered a taste for populism. A reliable guide for me would be anyone at FIRE or someone working with civic institutions like Eboo Patel of the Interfaith Alliance. But that's just my take on Ramaswamy and my perception of his new-found interest in free speech.
Also, good to see that conservative commentator Jessica Anderson is celebrating that "the right" isn't engaging in violence of any kind in response to the assassination attempt on the former President and current Presidential candidate. I applaud that lack of violence, while noting the many conspiracy theories hatched (by both sides) immediately upon the events of last Saturday, including some prominent conservatives, especially the VP nominee of the Republican Party. Did Jessica Anderson also comment at any point about her perspective on the events of January 6, 2021, which most definitely involved political violence?
My more general concern about preserving free speech culture even in extreme circumstances and even when individuals, factions, or notable figures in the political or cultural realm use violent language is this: how to maintain free speech culture in a climate of that rhetoric and intimidation? Many believe that the former President and current Presidential candidate has had at least some part creating that climate, which has had serious detriments in preserving civil discourse and making institutions viable?
Journalist Cathy Young presents a telling inventory of the violent language used by that prominent figure over the past eight years. I'd think this matters in the overall climate for free speech and civil discourse. And not for a second does it justify what happened last Saturday, but it surely presents a larger context for understanding the challenges for maintaining free expression in the current political climate.
This article linked here is a bit ridiculous. Nothing rivals the takes on “mostly peaceful protests” during the 2020 riots in America and the ongoing long streak of church burnings in Canada. These are actual acts of violence. And these actual acts do much much more to “create that climate” of violence than anything mentioned in the Young article. We could also add the brutalization of protestors in Canada during the shut down of Freedom Convoy by the Canadian state and the brutal response to parents trying to watch their kids hockey games during pandemic restrictions or people trying to use the beach during pandemic restrictions. Actual violence was used in all these incidents. And certainly had much more of an impact than the linked article. People experiencing violence firsthand is what has had the impact.
Our culture has been hateful enough for such behavior for a very, very long time. I just recently read an article in which a teacher from Dallas was remembering how some of her students cheered when JFK was assassinated and I thought: "How does a person who would cheer that even get socialized or acculturated into that level of inhuman cruelty and nastiness?" Then I look around. People get a THRILL out of being so vicious and others get a thrill out of high-fiving it. Or, even worse, when they "clap back" and claim that such disgust is simply some kind of spiritual weakness or a petty bourgeois aversion to "open violence," as I've been told. "Darryl, creating the conditions that create (poverty, racism, misogyny, degeneracy) is a form of [social] violence, too. This is just honest revolutionary/nation-protecting self-defense." When will people get a thrill out of saying: "I'm ashamed of you, fellow human. Improve or doom us all"? Do we all have personality disorders? Is ideology a threat to our humanity? I keep thinking YES.
I agree that violent and hateful rhetoric has had a long and infamous history in this country among politicians and public figures of all types and some citizens can be just as vicious and cruel--and we're seeing abundant evidence of it. I also know about the incident with the JFK assassination since I was very young then and even witnessed that same behavior from one classmate, and couldn't process the behavior at that age. I probably still can't process it ver well.
Relatedly, Greg Lukianoff of FIRE just published a post on the "Words = Violence" nonsense that is used now to shut down conversation or gain power or maneuver in other ways for status. A good reminder of how harmful, offensive, or transgressive language is protected by the First Amendment even if we don't like it and if it comes from those with whom we profoundly disagree.
Of course, I remain convinced that some prominent figures *can* create a climate of incitement through using violent rhetoric, and somehow that gets normalized over time and we either tune it out or become numb to it. David Frum's recent article, "The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator", speaks to this point very well.
Cancel culture not only goes against democratic free speech ideals, it is also immoral. It is a violation of God's commandments: you shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. It is slander. We should not judge and condemn another based on one thing said. Love your neighbor as yourself. Words can have consequences and lead to harm, words can sow discord. But we all have free will and are responsible for our own actions.
People have always enjoyed saying nasty things on various occasions. I remember that when former president Ronald Reagan died (2004), there was a whole lot of online celebration by the then progressives, and the internet was relatively new back then. Then there was a whole lot of chiding and chastising and talk about the "unprecedented" vitriol directed at Reagan at a time when everybody should be thinking "De mortuis, nil nis bonum", and I thought, "Unprecedented!???? Are you kidding?" We have documents going back for centuries of that sort of reaction to the death of a famous figure whom some revered and others reviled. Jonathan Swift's nasty poem about the Duke of Marlborough[1] is an excellent literary example from a vanished age, but it should be easily imagined what was being said everywhere by those with more moderate literary gifts.
I think that this recent spate of cancellations are just a demonstration of how the "progressive" left has won the culture wars so completely. It's the shear arbitrariness of what constitutes a cancellable offense that amazes me. All the "Shouldn't have missed", "Next time aim better", etc. remarks are absolute no brainers; they are so unexceptional that they should be unexceptionable when some employee of Home Depot posts from their personal account. But somehow, this week, the rules are such that a manager at Home Depot may fire an employee who posts something like that from their personal account. Next week the rules will be different again. The senselessness of it all is a symptom of the "progressive" victory.
I have not had a social media account until recently. I got a Facebook account about six months ago and barely a month later I witnessed my first "progressive" cancellation attempt. What amazed me first was the shear automaticness of the response of the would-be canceller. There was no altercation or prolonged heated argument leading to loss of temper and some resulting vindictiveness; the tagging of the employer happened immediately upon the sentiments having been expressed by the victim. I immediately called out the cancellation attempt in the hopes that that would make the would-be canceller feel some shame, and the number of likes (both public and private) that I got, showed that not everybody liked the cancellation efforts and they may have deterred the canceller (she never responded). So there's that. But I think cancellation is now endemic in our culture.
The best model of cancellation is a virus that is now dispersed throughout a population that has not yet internalized an understanding of the germ theory of disease or the importance of hygiene to prevent disease. I would suspect that the majority of cancellation attempts don't work, just as in many cases the immune system destroys the virus before it can multiply and bring about the disease in the infected person. But in some cases, by luck and chance the virus multiplies, the post is amplified (goes viral), and, because few are trained to resist cancellation attempts, the consequence is that the person is effectively cancelled.
So I would say that, like at least some amount of reasonable personal hygiene, a little self-censorship of a certain kind would be basic common sense. Not a self-censorship of opinions, but a self-censorship of mere reactions and provocations. But it will be many years, if ever, before the culture will be able to bend in that direction, in large part because it seems like everybody wants to be an entertainer these days.
Agreed, I think there is a substantive difference between self-censorship and reserve or restraint, at least some of which entails privacy and what Helen Nissenbaum calls "contextual integrity".[1] Contextual integrity is when our personal information (including opinions, etc.) is shared within accepted social norms of appropriateness ("when the right people know the right things about you at the right time" is how I explain this to my students) and distribution (does not exceed 'appropriateness', as in doxing or downstream reuse in excess of the agreed upon purpose limitation). Some utterances will be clearly understood as sarcasm or humor, or otherwise tolerated, when heard by an audience defined by meaningful social connections; not every thought needs to be broadcast. On the other hand, entertainers like Kyle Gass being 'canceled' for their reaction to political violence is an obvious breach of the social contract we should maintain with our court jesters.[2]
I agree entirely. And Andrew Doyle shouldn't have been cancelled for Titania McGrath, although it's nice that he seems to have thrived on the cancellation.
Actually, I have one quibble, it's with the "our" in "our court jesters". I agree that stand-up comics have inherited the "court jester" mantle. But you'ld have to pay me a lot to go to a comedy show; I dislike everything about them, so they are not "mine" hence not universally "our". Titania McGrath is not "court jester" stuff; that is satire, and descends much more from Addison's "Spectator" and such early satirical magazines.
FIRE sponsored a podcast on Political Violence and Speech that is worth listening to, featuring Nadine Strossen, Jacob Mchangama, and Flemming Rose. I highly recommend it.
Thanks for posting this, Craig, looking forward to checking this out in preparation for a longer treatment on rhetoric, political violence, and the safety valve theory of free speech!
I see it as a double entendre? Good people "break" the cycle of being, responding to, encouraging or arguing with the sorts of a-holes who cheer someone being shot at or stepping aside from power in recognition of a faltering mental state. Good people are kind and empathetic and patient and understanding. Good people see someone narrowly escape being shot at and they think of his family in mourning if the murder had happened. Or they read about a man deciding not to keep running for president and they think about how it must feel to give that up after 40+ years of public service...or to watch a husband and father struggle with his own cognition. Good people THINK DEEPER and put themselves in others' place. They don't just abstractify a living human and turn them into a symbol of loves and hates--they SEE them. That's the difference between an observant citizen and a vicious, hyper-politicized menace to humanity. And though the ultra-hip and thoroughly convinced call that "bothesides-ism" (a shameful concept for a public servant in the public information trades--minus PR shills--to internalize), I say without a hesitation: "bothsides" is what a good public library offers to the world. "Bothsides" is having the faith in the minds around us to spot and correct error without badgering from pedants. If we don't have that faith, LIBRARIANSHIP IS THE ABSOLUTE WRONG FIELD FOR US.
I agree with all of the points made here, in general, about maintaining a free speech culture even when individuals say transgressive, foolish, and ridiculous things, and even celebrate violence. Our First Amendment guarantees a very wide swath of free expression short of First Amendment violations of true threats, defamations/slander, and incitements to immediate violence.
However, I probably have a few 'bad takes' here, given that you've cited Vivek Ramaswamy, who's not my reliable guide to free speech or much of anything else, and who's only recently shown much interest in civics or politics or working with divergent perspectives--seems to be a trend with some of the technology entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley who've suddenly discovered a taste for populism. A reliable guide for me would be anyone at FIRE or someone working with civic institutions like Eboo Patel of the Interfaith Alliance. But that's just my take on Ramaswamy and my perception of his new-found interest in free speech.
Also, good to see that conservative commentator Jessica Anderson is celebrating that "the right" isn't engaging in violence of any kind in response to the assassination attempt on the former President and current Presidential candidate. I applaud that lack of violence, while noting the many conspiracy theories hatched (by both sides) immediately upon the events of last Saturday, including some prominent conservatives, especially the VP nominee of the Republican Party. Did Jessica Anderson also comment at any point about her perspective on the events of January 6, 2021, which most definitely involved political violence?
My more general concern about preserving free speech culture even in extreme circumstances and even when individuals, factions, or notable figures in the political or cultural realm use violent language is this: how to maintain free speech culture in a climate of that rhetoric and intimidation? Many believe that the former President and current Presidential candidate has had at least some part creating that climate, which has had serious detriments in preserving civil discourse and making institutions viable?
Journalist Cathy Young presents a telling inventory of the violent language used by that prominent figure over the past eight years. I'd think this matters in the overall climate for free speech and civil discourse. And not for a second does it justify what happened last Saturday, but it surely presents a larger context for understanding the challenges for maintaining free expression in the current political climate.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/donald-trump-violent-rhetoric-catalogue
This article linked here is a bit ridiculous. Nothing rivals the takes on “mostly peaceful protests” during the 2020 riots in America and the ongoing long streak of church burnings in Canada. These are actual acts of violence. And these actual acts do much much more to “create that climate” of violence than anything mentioned in the Young article. We could also add the brutalization of protestors in Canada during the shut down of Freedom Convoy by the Canadian state and the brutal response to parents trying to watch their kids hockey games during pandemic restrictions or people trying to use the beach during pandemic restrictions. Actual violence was used in all these incidents. And certainly had much more of an impact than the linked article. People experiencing violence firsthand is what has had the impact.
I was just recently reading "Fiery but Mostly Peaceful" by Julio Rosas (https://www.librarything.com/work/27475450/book/267136918). Anybody can go through that for the specifics of the incidents and the endless gaslighting.
Our culture has been hateful enough for such behavior for a very, very long time. I just recently read an article in which a teacher from Dallas was remembering how some of her students cheered when JFK was assassinated and I thought: "How does a person who would cheer that even get socialized or acculturated into that level of inhuman cruelty and nastiness?" Then I look around. People get a THRILL out of being so vicious and others get a thrill out of high-fiving it. Or, even worse, when they "clap back" and claim that such disgust is simply some kind of spiritual weakness or a petty bourgeois aversion to "open violence," as I've been told. "Darryl, creating the conditions that create (poverty, racism, misogyny, degeneracy) is a form of [social] violence, too. This is just honest revolutionary/nation-protecting self-defense." When will people get a thrill out of saying: "I'm ashamed of you, fellow human. Improve or doom us all"? Do we all have personality disorders? Is ideology a threat to our humanity? I keep thinking YES.
I agree that violent and hateful rhetoric has had a long and infamous history in this country among politicians and public figures of all types and some citizens can be just as vicious and cruel--and we're seeing abundant evidence of it. I also know about the incident with the JFK assassination since I was very young then and even witnessed that same behavior from one classmate, and couldn't process the behavior at that age. I probably still can't process it ver well.
Relatedly, Greg Lukianoff of FIRE just published a post on the "Words = Violence" nonsense that is used now to shut down conversation or gain power or maneuver in other ways for status. A good reminder of how harmful, offensive, or transgressive language is protected by the First Amendment even if we don't like it and if it comes from those with whom we profoundly disagree.
https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/why-the-words-are-violence-argument
Of course, I remain convinced that some prominent figures *can* create a climate of incitement through using violent rhetoric, and somehow that gets normalized over time and we either tune it out or become numb to it. David Frum's recent article, "The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator", speaks to this point very well.
https://archive.ph/zHsmY
Great article. Thank you, I will be sharing this!
Cancel culture not only goes against democratic free speech ideals, it is also immoral. It is a violation of God's commandments: you shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. It is slander. We should not judge and condemn another based on one thing said. Love your neighbor as yourself. Words can have consequences and lead to harm, words can sow discord. But we all have free will and are responsible for our own actions.
People have always enjoyed saying nasty things on various occasions. I remember that when former president Ronald Reagan died (2004), there was a whole lot of online celebration by the then progressives, and the internet was relatively new back then. Then there was a whole lot of chiding and chastising and talk about the "unprecedented" vitriol directed at Reagan at a time when everybody should be thinking "De mortuis, nil nis bonum", and I thought, "Unprecedented!???? Are you kidding?" We have documents going back for centuries of that sort of reaction to the death of a famous figure whom some revered and others reviled. Jonathan Swift's nasty poem about the Duke of Marlborough[1] is an excellent literary example from a vanished age, but it should be easily imagined what was being said everywhere by those with more moderate literary gifts.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/sep/08/poem-of-the-week-jonathan-swift
I think that this recent spate of cancellations are just a demonstration of how the "progressive" left has won the culture wars so completely. It's the shear arbitrariness of what constitutes a cancellable offense that amazes me. All the "Shouldn't have missed", "Next time aim better", etc. remarks are absolute no brainers; they are so unexceptional that they should be unexceptionable when some employee of Home Depot posts from their personal account. But somehow, this week, the rules are such that a manager at Home Depot may fire an employee who posts something like that from their personal account. Next week the rules will be different again. The senselessness of it all is a symptom of the "progressive" victory.
I have not had a social media account until recently. I got a Facebook account about six months ago and barely a month later I witnessed my first "progressive" cancellation attempt. What amazed me first was the shear automaticness of the response of the would-be canceller. There was no altercation or prolonged heated argument leading to loss of temper and some resulting vindictiveness; the tagging of the employer happened immediately upon the sentiments having been expressed by the victim. I immediately called out the cancellation attempt in the hopes that that would make the would-be canceller feel some shame, and the number of likes (both public and private) that I got, showed that not everybody liked the cancellation efforts and they may have deterred the canceller (she never responded). So there's that. But I think cancellation is now endemic in our culture.
The best model of cancellation is a virus that is now dispersed throughout a population that has not yet internalized an understanding of the germ theory of disease or the importance of hygiene to prevent disease. I would suspect that the majority of cancellation attempts don't work, just as in many cases the immune system destroys the virus before it can multiply and bring about the disease in the infected person. But in some cases, by luck and chance the virus multiplies, the post is amplified (goes viral), and, because few are trained to resist cancellation attempts, the consequence is that the person is effectively cancelled.
So I would say that, like at least some amount of reasonable personal hygiene, a little self-censorship of a certain kind would be basic common sense. Not a self-censorship of opinions, but a self-censorship of mere reactions and provocations. But it will be many years, if ever, before the culture will be able to bend in that direction, in large part because it seems like everybody wants to be an entertainer these days.
Agreed, I think there is a substantive difference between self-censorship and reserve or restraint, at least some of which entails privacy and what Helen Nissenbaum calls "contextual integrity".[1] Contextual integrity is when our personal information (including opinions, etc.) is shared within accepted social norms of appropriateness ("when the right people know the right things about you at the right time" is how I explain this to my students) and distribution (does not exceed 'appropriateness', as in doxing or downstream reuse in excess of the agreed upon purpose limitation). Some utterances will be clearly understood as sarcasm or humor, or otherwise tolerated, when heard by an audience defined by meaningful social connections; not every thought needs to be broadcast. On the other hand, entertainers like Kyle Gass being 'canceled' for their reaction to political violence is an obvious breach of the social contract we should maintain with our court jesters.[2]
[1] https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol79/iss1/10/
[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2024/07/18/what-did-kyle-gass-say-the-trump-remark-that-canceled-tenacious-d/74454267007/
I agree entirely. And Andrew Doyle shouldn't have been cancelled for Titania McGrath, although it's nice that he seems to have thrived on the cancellation.
Actually, I have one quibble, it's with the "our" in "our court jesters". I agree that stand-up comics have inherited the "court jester" mantle. But you'ld have to pay me a lot to go to a comedy show; I dislike everything about them, so they are not "mine" hence not universally "our". Titania McGrath is not "court jester" stuff; that is satire, and descends much more from Addison's "Spectator" and such early satirical magazines.
FIRE sponsored a podcast on Political Violence and Speech that is worth listening to, featuring Nadine Strossen, Jacob Mchangama, and Flemming Rose. I highly recommend it.
https://www.thefire.org/news/podcasts/so-speak-free-speech-podcast/political-violence-and-speech
Thanks for posting this, Craig, looking forward to checking this out in preparation for a longer treatment on rhetoric, political violence, and the safety valve theory of free speech!
Excellent read. Thanks for writing this.
I agree with this article, but I can't get past the "breaks" -- brakes are what we should be pumping. :)
I see it as a double entendre? Good people "break" the cycle of being, responding to, encouraging or arguing with the sorts of a-holes who cheer someone being shot at or stepping aside from power in recognition of a faltering mental state. Good people are kind and empathetic and patient and understanding. Good people see someone narrowly escape being shot at and they think of his family in mourning if the murder had happened. Or they read about a man deciding not to keep running for president and they think about how it must feel to give that up after 40+ years of public service...or to watch a husband and father struggle with his own cognition. Good people THINK DEEPER and put themselves in others' place. They don't just abstractify a living human and turn them into a symbol of loves and hates--they SEE them. That's the difference between an observant citizen and a vicious, hyper-politicized menace to humanity. And though the ultra-hip and thoroughly convinced call that "bothesides-ism" (a shameful concept for a public servant in the public information trades--minus PR shills--to internalize), I say without a hesitation: "bothsides" is what a good public library offers to the world. "Bothsides" is having the faith in the minds around us to spot and correct error without badgering from pedants. If we don't have that faith, LIBRARIANSHIP IS THE ABSOLUTE WRONG FIELD FOR US.