In the beginning, there was a tweet, and it was bad. And then it got worse. Queen Elizabeth II died on Thursday. Much of the world was in mourning, including many outside the British Commonwealth. Not everyone, of course. Anti-Elizabethans were quick to post rowdy memes and videos on social media (Irish Twitter was particularly bumptious).
How are you better on Substack than Twitter? That's just unfair. This is one of the more enjoyable defenses of the concept of free speech I've read in a while.
I actually enjoyed most of the Queen Elizabeth memes. Helped provide some levity on a sobering day.
And yes, I totally agree with your point. I think, far too often, we see people defend someone's right to free speech because they agree with what the person is saying & want to fight back against a perceived left-wing bias, rather than defending it as a fundamental right for everyone. In this way, free speech can become another foggy buzzword, a rallying cry for the culture war. And that's a tragedy.
We need free speech because, as you so eloquently stated, it is our defense against error, which we are all far, far more prone to than we think. It's stunning how often we are vague, even on accident. We constantly have to keep open the possibility of error, otherwise, we become arrogant.
Furthermore, ethically & philosophically speaking, I don't think we we can (& more importantly, should) determine what to value and attend to, or what order to value things in, without debate and rational discussion, as outlined well here: https://youtu.be/sPGNRyn6t1o.
Excellent post! Your substack is one of the few pieces of political content I don't have to force myself to sit through, which, especially in election season, is saying something.
It was the "excruciating pain" part that was wrong for me. This may only be someone's sadistic fantasy, but it was not that distant from the reality of a dying nonagenarian woman. It's quite possible that I might be fired from my job (in secondary education) for such an attack on anybody, be they public or private. I'm no fan of monarchic systems of rule, but like many, thought Lizzy herself was probably alright. However, I'm clearly a little fuzzy on where the lines should be drawn here.
Same. Perhaps it was because I lost two extended family members within a few weeks' time from Elizabeth's death, but this and some of the other more vitriolic Tweets did make me "despair for humanity." That doesn't mean I don't think people had a right to say them, but I struggle with the line between defending the RIGHT to "ugly speech" and defending the speech itself. I'm glad there are no legal sanctions for such speech, and I didn't/don't want Anja to be fired, but as far as Twitter removing the Tweet and the university distancing itself from her statement? I'm ok with it.
While I agree with you that CMU should defend free speech, and it shouldn't make a difference if the speech is vile, I don't think the CMU statement is weak sauce. It shows that they'll defend free speech even when it's nasty.
Emphasising the nastiness of the free speech you'll defend can make the defense stronger. When the ACLU defended the Nazis in the Skokie case, they issued a pamphlet: "Why the American Civil Liberties Union Defends Free Speech for Racists and Totalitarians". By showing that they'll even defend racists, they showed that they took free speech seriously.
The abstract statement "Free expression is core to the mission of higher education. We have no other comment." is not that powerful. I imagine they also think social justice is core to the mission of higher education. How would CMU respond if those core mission statements collide? You need to show that free expression trumps social justice.
Why is the ACLU of today so much worse on free speech issues? They still hold free speech as a core belief, the problem is that they won't stick to it when it (seems to) conflict with other core beliefs.
How are you better on Substack than Twitter? That's just unfair. This is one of the more enjoyable defenses of the concept of free speech I've read in a while.
Thank you! (The truth is it's all ghost written by Kelly, my neighbor who lives across the hall.)
I think Twitter is okay in expecting user compliance with their code of conduct. No shoes, no socks - no service!
Uh oh. I may be in trouble.
I actually enjoyed most of the Queen Elizabeth memes. Helped provide some levity on a sobering day.
And yes, I totally agree with your point. I think, far too often, we see people defend someone's right to free speech because they agree with what the person is saying & want to fight back against a perceived left-wing bias, rather than defending it as a fundamental right for everyone. In this way, free speech can become another foggy buzzword, a rallying cry for the culture war. And that's a tragedy.
We need free speech because, as you so eloquently stated, it is our defense against error, which we are all far, far more prone to than we think. It's stunning how often we are vague, even on accident. We constantly have to keep open the possibility of error, otherwise, we become arrogant.
Furthermore, ethically & philosophically speaking, I don't think we we can (& more importantly, should) determine what to value and attend to, or what order to value things in, without debate and rational discussion, as outlined well here: https://youtu.be/sPGNRyn6t1o.
Excellent post! Your substack is one of the few pieces of political content I don't have to force myself to sit through, which, especially in election season, is saying something.
Thank you! I will try and keep not requiring force.
It was the "excruciating pain" part that was wrong for me. This may only be someone's sadistic fantasy, but it was not that distant from the reality of a dying nonagenarian woman. It's quite possible that I might be fired from my job (in secondary education) for such an attack on anybody, be they public or private. I'm no fan of monarchic systems of rule, but like many, thought Lizzy herself was probably alright. However, I'm clearly a little fuzzy on where the lines should be drawn here.
Same. Perhaps it was because I lost two extended family members within a few weeks' time from Elizabeth's death, but this and some of the other more vitriolic Tweets did make me "despair for humanity." That doesn't mean I don't think people had a right to say them, but I struggle with the line between defending the RIGHT to "ugly speech" and defending the speech itself. I'm glad there are no legal sanctions for such speech, and I didn't/don't want Anja to be fired, but as far as Twitter removing the Tweet and the university distancing itself from her statement? I'm ok with it.
While I agree with you that CMU should defend free speech, and it shouldn't make a difference if the speech is vile, I don't think the CMU statement is weak sauce. It shows that they'll defend free speech even when it's nasty.
Emphasising the nastiness of the free speech you'll defend can make the defense stronger. When the ACLU defended the Nazis in the Skokie case, they issued a pamphlet: "Why the American Civil Liberties Union Defends Free Speech for Racists and Totalitarians". By showing that they'll even defend racists, they showed that they took free speech seriously.
The abstract statement "Free expression is core to the mission of higher education. We have no other comment." is not that powerful. I imagine they also think social justice is core to the mission of higher education. How would CMU respond if those core mission statements collide? You need to show that free expression trumps social justice.
Why is the ACLU of today so much worse on free speech issues? They still hold free speech as a core belief, the problem is that they won't stick to it when it (seems to) conflict with other core beliefs.