Very good, measured piece. Aporia seems to publish few but always excellent pieces. I now know that anything they publish will be worth reading, which is not always the case with other substacks.
<Which brings us to the subject of Jews. As Bari Weiss and, even before recent events, James Lindsay pointed out, anti-Semitism is “a reliable consequence of the ideology of Critical Social Justice when put into practice.”>
Sadly, Jews have done far more than their fair share of promoting politically correct ideologies since their cultural ascendancy. In many ways, they are experiencing a backlash of their own making.
Yes Safetyism is about lots of things....all of them bad. It is an amalgam of Manipulativeness, Self Absorption, Self Indulgence, Self Pity and Hypochondria. Two things have allowed its poisonous spread through our Western culture....one of them (1) a (probably) unavoidable consequence of economic change; the other (2) an (in principle) avoidable consequence of the ideology of Progress. Specifically:
1) the gradual elimination, from most forms of employment, of the need for risky or hard manual exertion. 2) the fact that for decades now our Liberal cultural mores have become the plaything of a self-engrossed, malcontent pseudo-intelligentsia that has been allowed free-rein to entirely colonise our institutions of higher learning and thereby spread their decadent influence to the ambitious but impressionable young mind of the future elite. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
"Reasonable people can disagree both about how to exactly set the standards for free speech—the First Amendment and subsequent judicial opinions on the topic are good places to start—and how a particular case fits with those standards."
Speech must be defined.
Words, spoken or written, constitute speech. Physical actions are not speech.
One either has free speech or they do not. Free speech is binary, just like pregnancy.
In the sentence you quote, I had in mind rulings such as Brandenburg, which said that speech could be prohibited (by the government) if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action." Defamation, to me, also seems like a reasonable limit on speech (NY Times v Sullivan). But, again, I respect that not everyone shares that view and I imagine the Court will continue to evolve on this topic. Generally, I take the point that people can disagree with these standards. I think what I would say is that I respect your view, but the standards set by the supreme court don’t strike me as unreasonable.
I understand the situation. But my point is that under those conditions, 'Free speech' is a misnomer. Terms such as modified free speech, limited free speech, or conditional free speech are more fitting.
"In the sentence you quote, I had in mind rulings such as Brandenburg, which said that speech could be prohibited (by the government) if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Terms such as 'likely,' 'directed at inciting,' and 'imminent' are arbitrary and open to debate, in other words, bad legal rulings. But it does keep lawyers employed.
I don't think we need a lot of costly law suits, only a few legal precedents that translate into norms of greater tolerance for disagreement and acceptance of agreements to disagree.
Great piece, Rob. I think, though, that a lot of free speech legislation has not caught up with the age of social media. People, including academics, say and do things on social media that they would never dare in face-to-face interaction. I see academics recyle hateful material to silence others with the excuse that they are only liking or retweeting it, so there is no accountability. Cyberharassment can achieve greater and long lasting censorship that democratic governments ever can.
Just because they are legal does not suggest some actions should not be undertaken. Business ethics and morality fill in the gaps in the law for commerce, we need the same for free speech and academic freedom of expression--two very different things.
Chip Berlet wrote an essay in 2000 explaining succinctly how every modern conspiracy theory is a riff on the Protocols. David Icke makes it about lizard people instead of Jews, but of course it still ends up being about Jews, inevitably.
Not surprisingly, Weiss seems only concerned about Jews, but whites are under siege by the Woke totalitarians, too. Whites long ago lost their freedom of association with the assistance of many proto-woke activist Jews.
Very good, measured piece. Aporia seems to publish few but always excellent pieces. I now know that anything they publish will be worth reading, which is not always the case with other substacks.
<Which brings us to the subject of Jews. As Bari Weiss and, even before recent events, James Lindsay pointed out, anti-Semitism is “a reliable consequence of the ideology of Critical Social Justice when put into practice.”>
Sadly, Jews have done far more than their fair share of promoting politically correct ideologies since their cultural ascendancy. In many ways, they are experiencing a backlash of their own making.
Schrier article: https://www.city-journal.org/article/universities-to-jewish-students-youre-on-your-own
Yes Safetyism is about lots of things....all of them bad. It is an amalgam of Manipulativeness, Self Absorption, Self Indulgence, Self Pity and Hypochondria. Two things have allowed its poisonous spread through our Western culture....one of them (1) a (probably) unavoidable consequence of economic change; the other (2) an (in principle) avoidable consequence of the ideology of Progress. Specifically:
1) the gradual elimination, from most forms of employment, of the need for risky or hard manual exertion. 2) the fact that for decades now our Liberal cultural mores have become the plaything of a self-engrossed, malcontent pseudo-intelligentsia that has been allowed free-rein to entirely colonise our institutions of higher learning and thereby spread their decadent influence to the ambitious but impressionable young mind of the future elite. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
"Reasonable people can disagree both about how to exactly set the standards for free speech—the First Amendment and subsequent judicial opinions on the topic are good places to start—and how a particular case fits with those standards."
Speech must be defined.
Words, spoken or written, constitute speech. Physical actions are not speech.
One either has free speech or they do not. Free speech is binary, just like pregnancy.
In the sentence you quote, I had in mind rulings such as Brandenburg, which said that speech could be prohibited (by the government) if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action." Defamation, to me, also seems like a reasonable limit on speech (NY Times v Sullivan). But, again, I respect that not everyone shares that view and I imagine the Court will continue to evolve on this topic. Generally, I take the point that people can disagree with these standards. I think what I would say is that I respect your view, but the standards set by the supreme court don’t strike me as unreasonable.
I understand the situation. But my point is that under those conditions, 'Free speech' is a misnomer. Terms such as modified free speech, limited free speech, or conditional free speech are more fitting.
"In the sentence you quote, I had in mind rulings such as Brandenburg, which said that speech could be prohibited (by the government) if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Terms such as 'likely,' 'directed at inciting,' and 'imminent' are arbitrary and open to debate, in other words, bad legal rulings. But it does keep lawyers employed.
I don't think we need a lot of costly law suits, only a few legal precedents that translate into norms of greater tolerance for disagreement and acceptance of agreements to disagree.
Ahh yes, stare decisis. Wrong once, wrong forever.
I don't think this trend will reverse, I think it will become more extreme.
"I don't think this trend will reverse, I think it will become more extreme."
Well, since those who control this country are promoting this trend, you are probably correct.
Great piece, Rob. I think, though, that a lot of free speech legislation has not caught up with the age of social media. People, including academics, say and do things on social media that they would never dare in face-to-face interaction. I see academics recyle hateful material to silence others with the excuse that they are only liking or retweeting it, so there is no accountability. Cyberharassment can achieve greater and long lasting censorship that democratic governments ever can.
Just because they are legal does not suggest some actions should not be undertaken. Business ethics and morality fill in the gaps in the law for commerce, we need the same for free speech and academic freedom of expression--two very different things.
Chip Berlet wrote an essay in 2000 explaining succinctly how every modern conspiracy theory is a riff on the Protocols. David Icke makes it about lizard people instead of Jews, but of course it still ends up being about Jews, inevitably.
Females
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked
Not surprisingly, Weiss seems only concerned about Jews, but whites are under siege by the Woke totalitarians, too. Whites long ago lost their freedom of association with the assistance of many proto-woke activist Jews.