- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
 |
| Is Free Speech Under Threat? |
Last week, an open letter was published in Harper’s Magazine. It lamented that free speech
was coming under threat and was being engulfed in “a stifling atmosphere [that]
will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time.”
The letter managed to
accrue 153 signatories, ranging from legendary author (and noted transphobe)
J.K. Rowling, opinion writer (and very serious person, as you soon
shall see) Bari Weiss, and Noam F***king Chomsky (to the adage “never
meet your heroes” should be appended “never google them either”).
Millions of Americans
have heralded the mass protests in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor and others as an awakening of racial justice on a national
scale. However, the signatories of the now infamous open letter have chosen to
see something far more sinister in the large and overwhelmingly peaceful
demonstrations against America’s multi-century relationship with systemic
racism. To them, the protests have been an insidious force that has “weaken[ed]
our norms of open debate, and toleration of difference”.
The signatories fear that American society has been galvanized into accepting ideological conformity at the expense of the “free exchange of information and ideas”. In sum, the letter is a screed against the perceived scourge that is “cancel culture”, the terrifying hydra of public opinion that destroys the careers of any academician, journalist, or author who dares to publish content that contradicts the leftist narrative (you know, the leftist narrative, that hogwash ideology that tells us that we need to treat everyone with humanity).
Predictably, the letter does not cite a single
example of an outspoken academician or author who was blacklisted for daring to
speak their truth.
Nevertheless, the
charges in this letter are indeed serious. It is critical that journalism, academia,
and literature remain spaces where freedom of expression is inviolate. In fact,
I decided to help the letter’s signatories by providing them with
real-life examples of the exact thing that they are complaining about. It turns
out that some figures have been ‘cancelled’ for making their
opinions public.
My First
Example
For instance, one such
victim of the craze that is cancel culture is Joseph Massad, a
Palestinian-American professor at Columbia University, and an academic with
strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another is Linda Sarsour,
an outspoken Palestinian-American activist with some unconventional opinions
on everything under the activist sun from racism, feminism, and – you guessed
it – the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Surely these
ideological mavericks – despite their strong opinions – are deserving of the
protections of free speech?
Well, if your name is very
serious person Bari Weiss – the same Bari Weiss that signed a letter in
support of free speech – the answer is no. Weiss has spent the better part of
her adult life targeting these and other individuals (who just happen to
all be POC and Muslim) with whom she disagreed politically. She has repeatedly
called for the firing of Massad and the de-platforming and cancelling of Sarsour.
In fact, Massad has
been one of Weiss’ “bête noires” since she started studying at Columbia in the
mid-aughts. Recently, she attacked him yet again in her 2019 book How to
Fight Anti-Semitism. As a New York Times columnist, Weiss also worked to
de-platform Sarsour, deploring her as an “unhinged anti-Semite” for her
anti-Zionist views.
All that would be fine,
of course, if there was absolutely no record of Weiss complaining about overt
restrictions on free speech. Oh, Wait.
Well, it appears that example
didn’t really bolster the open letter’s case, so much as make Weiss look like
the gigantic hypocrite that she is. All well, I’m sure there is a better
example I could use!
Another
One!
There was this other
guy, Steven Salaita, an English professor who was offered an academic
appointment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Unfortunately,
Salaita was vocally critical of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and wrote some preeeeetty anti-Semitic things on the tweetbook.
Luckily, Cary Nelson,
an English professor at Urbana-Champaign was there to save the day and smite
Salaita with the ban hammer. He led the charge amongst University of Illinois
faculty to withdraw Salaita’s offer of employment, and it worked. Salaita was
not only excluded from consideration for the open position at Illinois but was
driven out of education almost entirely. I say almost, because he now works as
a school bus driver. So, all’s well that ends well, right?
Well, except for the
fact that Nelson – the professor that publicly supported the de-platforming of
Salaita – is one of the signatories of the Harper’s Magazine letter. Now, let’s
be clear that some of the things Salaita said were deeply problematic and
prejudicial. However, if you were a supporter of an absolutist view of free
speech – as Nelson appears to be – the censuring of another professor for his controversial
statements comes off as rather contradictory.
Oh dear. Despite my
attempts to support the open letter’s arguments, it seems that all I’ve done is
weaken it yet again. Perhaps, a different approach is warranted. Maybe we can find an
example that directly affects a signatory of the letter???
Rowling?
Oh, I know!! I got it!!
J.K. Rowling! J.K. Rowling signed this letter, and she has been silenced for
what she thinks! Right????
Well, let’s talk about
that. Most of us know Rowling for her legendary Harry Potter series of books
and the movies based on them, all of which have been a powerful global cultural
phenomenon. Though she has lived through very difficult circumstances, suffering through
an unstable family life, a toxic relationship with an abusive husband, and then
a stint as an unemployed single mother, she eventually found success and fame
as one of the most influential authors of a generation.
In recent years
however, Rowling has taken an interest in LGBT issues, with a focus on the T of
that acronym. Unfortunately, comprehending an extremely nuanced position such
as “transgender people are humans deserving of respect, and should be allowed
to live with dignity” seems to be something that completely escaped the author who literally dreamed up an complex magical universe of fictional wizards
and creatures of all shapes and sizes.
Rowling joined the “dark
side” of feminism, known as TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical
Feminism). These ‘gender critical feminists’ believe that trans women are evil
demented men who are hell bent on entering women’s bathrooms to violate
cisgender women. There is absolutely no evidence that trans women
systematically exploit laws that allow them to exist to commit sex crimes.
Alas, an absence of evidence has never been a deterrent for hateful people.
Rowling has made clear
that she shares the view of TERFs, writing on her own website: “When you throw
open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels
he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be
granted without any need for surgery or hormones [in Scotland] – then you open
the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”
So here we are, yet another example of a prominent person who has controversial views that go against the mainstream. We can all guess what happened next, right?
That’s
right, Rowling was completely de-platformed for this act of ideological defiance.
Her literature was banned from bookstores, she was forbidden from publishing so
much as a haiku, and copies of Harry Potter were burned in the streets by angry
mobs who apparently had nothing better to do than take out their
misplaced anger on fake wizards.
Except that fully none of that happened.
Harry Potter books have been removed from libraries,
and some have been burnt, but that was mostly angry Catholics who believe
sorcery is an insidious threat to society and look upon the Dark Ages as the
“Happy Time”. What did happen in response to Rowling’s transphobic tirades was
a veritable Twitter backlash. In other words, a lot of people on the internet got
angry, some burnt their own copies of Rowling’s work, and some even called Rowling nasty things. And that made Rowling sad.
And that’s about it. Rowling
was never ‘censored’ for daring to speak her mind but was rather chastised for
views that most reasonable people would agree are extreme and prejudicial.
Suffice it to say that
for a group of people concerned with free speech, a hell of a lot of these
signatories seem to have blatant conflicts of interest, or otherwise lack much
foundation for their claims. And that should give us pause for thought.
The Goal
Aside from Chomsky, who
has a reputation for defending free speech for all regardless of how abhorrent
the speech of the speaker, many of the signatories of this letter seem to have
less than admirable ulterior motives. Chomsky’s decision to add his name to the
letter was rather misguided, as it lent credence to those dedicated to
censoring people like Noam F***ing Chomsky, but it wasn’t with malice of
forethought.
Furthermore, this
letter isn’t arguing for free speech, but rather argues for consequence-free
speech. Many of those who added their name to this declaration have made it
clear that they value free speech very selectively. And if these
examples have been any indication, some of the letter’s advocates have been
principle proponents of cancel culture in recent decades. The problem is that
now, the beast has turned against its masters, and cancel culture is targeting
them.
In other words, this letter argues for the right to say
absolutely anything, without any criticism or consequence. And yet, this seems
to be a luxury that some of the signatories of this letter seem completely
unwilling to accord to those who don’t comply with their own ideological
outlook. It also would seem to violate the free speech of those who choose to
criticize prominent cultural figures.
And yet, those who
signed this letter are complaining about a phenomenon that has arguably always
existed, and always will exist. That is, when something is submitted for the
consideration of the public, the public responds. Sometimes, the response is
positive. Other times, it is critical. In this sense, ‘cancel culture’ – which
ultimately amounts to public shaming – has existed since before the invention
of the printed word.
The difference now is
that the criticism of the public isn’t limited to however many people could
read a pamphlet or talk to a disgruntled neighbor. All dissent can now be
broadcast on the information highways of social media. The mechanisms that hold
journalists, authors, and political figures accountable to the public have
become highly visible, can deploy instantly, and at any time.
Social media gives a wide spectrum of people a voice that wouldn't otherwise have it, and that makes people like Bari Weiss, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and J.K. Rowling uncomfortable (though transgender people apparently still take gold in making Rowling uncomfortable). Thus, while denouncing ‘cancel culture’, the letter tacitly supports a much more powerful form of cancel culture; a movement that hopes to silence the diverse array of voices that the 21st century has given a megaphone to.
Therefore, it is quite hard to lend any credibility to this letter as a spirited defense of free speech. It is more accurate to call it a long, drawn-out case of the pot calling the kettle black. Cancel culture has done little to affect the careers of any of the open letter’s proponents. In multiple instances, it was instrumental in creating their public image.
Share this article, and leave a comment! All engagement is good engagement, if you squint hard enough. Write us at contrarypedant@gmail.com with your (angry) thoughts!
FURTHER READING
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/07/harpers-letter-free-speech/614080/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/08/letter-harpers-free-speech/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html
https://camera-uk.org/2014/09/10/guardian-forgets-to-mention-steven-salaitas-most-hateful-tweets/
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/06/jk-rowling-faces-backlash-after-transphobic-tweets
Comments
Post a Comment