2 ms·

I generally favor free expression. I'd rather an ugly, obnoxious and pernicious idea be expressed - so I can or others can be free to dismantle it in the arena

I generally favor free expression. I'd rather an ugly, obnoxious and pernicious idea be expressed - so I can or others can be free to dismantle it in the arena of ideas. Obviously there are tremendous shades of nuance here. Free Speech does not mean free speech on private platforms. Still, if most or all major platforms constrain what can be expressed, what we end up with is a functional chilling of speech. Part of what makes the current debate over cancel culture so difficult is that most of us, even those who love free expression, would not be comfortable with giving space to certain assertions even in places that are meant for intellectual contention. As much as I believe a University should be a space where intellectual debate is welcomed, I don't think any University should give a platform to, say, a holocaust denier. We all draw the line somewhere. Permuting where that line gets drawn is very, very difficult. Especially because morality evolves, and our convictions about certain things are constantly changing the light of new evidence, new understandings, especially re: traditionally disenfranchised peoples. The real danger of "cancel culture" is rhetorical, I think. People need to be persuaded of an idea to really accept it. They cannot be hectored into acceptance. You can shove them out of platforms, but they will hold their beliefs, and externalize them at the ballot-box, or elsewhere. Moral development takes time, and it takes suasion. There's a lot more to unpack here. A part of me wonders if cancel culture is just another expression of a kind of acrimoniousness that has always accompanied political life. Or maybe not. I don't have all the answers. But on balance, I still believe in favoring a space for debate.

hirundo 6y ago
> most of us, even those who love free expression, would not be comfortable with giving space to certain assertions even in places that are meant for intellectual contention I think that's the problem. Any condition beyond being not insulting and not threatening leaves a place to drive in a wedge by those opposed to free speech. They say, if you won't let this Nazi speak, you shouldn't let this person I associate with Nazi-ism speak. Instead we should let the Nazi speak. And the pedophile, human extinction advocate, anti-vaxxer, etc. We don't have to listen, but neither should we punch them, rhetorically or otherwise, as long as they follow some minimal content neutral standard of decorum.

hirundo 6y ago

> most of us, even those who love free expression, would not be comfortable with giving space to certain assertions even in places that are meant for intellectual contention I think that's the problem. Any condition beyond being not insulting and not threatening leaves a place to drive in a wedge by those opposed to free speech. They say, if you won't let this Nazi speak, you shouldn't let this person I associate with Nazi-ism speak. Instead we should let the Nazi speak. And the pedophile, human extinction advocate, anti-vaxxer, etc. We don't have to listen, but neither should we punch them, rhetorically or otherwise, as long as they follow some minimal content neutral standard of decorum.