Campus free speech

[sabotabby]

 I keep thinking about the campus free speech fights. The Harper's Letter. Running those names through my head, over and over again, serious IRL writers and intellectuals who genuinely claimed, just a few years ago, that one of the greatest threats to global democracy was the suppression of free speech on American college campuses. Now that that suppression is happening in plain sight, fewer than a quarter of them have had anything to say about it. Which really qualifies what they meant by "free speech" in the first place.

Of course, no one is a free speech absolutist, not for real. I knew they were as disingenuous then as I am now when I say, "FREEZED PEACH" in response to campus repression, not just in the failed state but here in Canada too. Since not everyone can have free speech, we all really only support the free speech of people who at most we are aligned with, who at least we are not threatened by.

At least I admit I don't believe in free speech. At least I am less of a hypocrite.

Ah! But the left in general, making its noises about free speech now when we were trying to shut down poor Jordan Peterson's anti-trans bigotry, or Milo Yiannopoulos' misogynoir a few years ago. Had we just been a little nicer to them—

—nah, they still woulda shoved us into vans. Come the fuck on. Grow up, exist in reality.

The similarity across the political spectrum, from the anarchists and communists to the centrists and the liberals to the conservatives to the Nazis to the right-libertarians is that for each group, there is a category of people who we all believe need to absolutely shut the fuck up. That category is a little narrower in some bits of the spectrum than others. Where the difference lies is what each side does about speech that they consider dangerous.

These terrifying campus cancellation campaigns, what was their goal? To make sure that students' tuition money and taxpayer dollars weren't spent platforming people who want to make some of these kids dead. I think that's a laudable goal, but even if I didn't, let's look at the strategies of these campus protesters. They protested. They exercised their own rights to free speech, which was never framed as such. Sometimes they snuck in and glued someone's office doors shut. They used their communal strength to speak, to block, to generate solidarity, and when things got violent, the cops stood with their backs to the provocateurs and their weapons to the protesters. When these protesters failed, they were beaten and disciplined and defamed in the press and serious intellectuals wrote concerned letters about how they were triggered snowflakes.

Now look at how the right gets speech it doesn't like shut down. They call the cops. They hit up the US Secretary of State on Twitter and give them names of activists they'd like deported, please and thanks, and he answers their call. They celebrate secret offshore death camps. They vote in governments that pass laws that outlaw speech, that outlaw speaking in support of that speech, that create "bubble zones" where speech is not allowed at all. They deport students for writing op-eds, all in the name of free speech. They take over governments so that they, and only they, can decide who gets to take a piss. They do not put their own bodies on the line—they are scared of "harm," after all, of "emotional violence"; they Karen up the biggest manager they can find and complain until the state does the silencing for them. 

To the extent that there is a crisis of masculinity, it's not because of feminists. It's because these whining, snivelling pee-babies have less balls than I do.

Comments

[blogcutter]

Having done my undergraduate working the early 1970s when student protests were at a (then) all-time high, this is certainly a topic I'm passionate about! I mean, we protested wars and juntas, gender inequality, student fee increases, we marched, we had sit-ins and walk-outs ... and so on. But somehow, it was all so much more polite and civilized than what I'm seeing today. There was room to debate and politely disagree, whether in whole or in part and even when the disagreement was profound, we could still all go out together and try to solve all the world's problems over a coffee or a beer. I think we've lost that now, with everyone glued to their devices and often unable to effectively or enjoyably interact with other human beings, whether students, professors, administrative or maintenance staff.

I'm also not entirely convinced about the left's vs. the right's strategies. Surely context is everything here? I mean, if bubble zones enable a distressed pregnant woman to obtain her abortion and related care in peace, or help someone from the LGBTQ+ community to explore their options with a medical practitioner, then I'm all for them!

Seems tome that peaceful protest, offering an opinion, and having a debate debate or discussion are all very different animals from mocking, bullying, harassment, death threats, even though they all involve speech of some sort. Though I will admit to feeling uneasy about how the concept of "hate speech" has been incorporated into the legal context.

[sabotabby]

I think the level of civility and politeness depends on the cause, really. I remember some pretty civil arguments back in my day too, but they tended to be on comparatively minor issues, not existential threats. You can agree to disagree on student fees, but it's very hard to be chill with someone who's trying to outlaw your existence. Things felt more remote and lower stakes when I was a student.

I've known a number of clinic defenders, and I've of course seen pro-plague people try to storm hospitals, and Nazis try to storm mosques, so it's not like I'm inherently against the idea of safe zones. It's more that I don't believe in the ability of the state to enforce them in any meaningful way. I think the cops will surround a Starbucks to save its windows from being broken, but reproductive health clinics are always defended by community volunteers, hospitals by their own staff, and mosques by antifa like me. It's just too likely that the cops sympathize with the ones causing the danger, not the vulnerable people inside.

Seems tome that peaceful protest, offering an opinion, and having a debate debate or discussion are all very different animals from mocking, bullying, harassment, death threats, even though they all involve speech of some sort. Though I will admit to feeling uneasy about how the concept of "hate speech" has been incorporated into the legal context.

But everyone is going to disagree on where that line is. Many Americans, for example, see bending a knee as violence, and many Canadians feel that blocking a highway is. To be clear, I think it's good that we all have lines; it's a starting point for a more mature discussion about these issues.

For me, the line is not civility or politeness; I would always rather someone be rude but honest. It's the level of existential threat. If someone is advocating genocide I'll debate them for a bit but if I realize it's hopeless, I'm going to start looking for ways to make them STFU.

[ioplokon]

??? There was much more political violence in the 70s than today, in the US at least. Like many actual bombs and assassinations?

[dissectionist]

Yeah, I agree; the original argument ignores the fact that in Ye Olden Days we had politicians fist-fighting in the streets, starting riots, etc. I mean, hell, the police in Canada started as paid protection for the politicians. It isn’t like the past was some glory age of peacefully debating ideas and then things have gone to shit over the last couple decades.

Also, as one of those people who is on the genocidal chopping block for multiple reasons from right-wing fascists: fuck the idea that they deserve kindness and civility. I’m not going to have a beer and a friendly chat about my human rights with someone who is literally trying to kill me.

[sabotabby]

A really important thing to remember (for all of us) is that nonviolence and civil discourse has always been backed up by at least the threat of force. Otherwise, it just becomes one-way violence—abortion providers don't tend to shoot back, but they certainly get shot all the time. Etc. Peaceful campus sit-ins, to the extent that they've ever been effective, were backed up by the Weathermen, the Panthers, etc.

[minoanmiss]

There was room to debate and politely disagree, whether in whole or in part and even when the disagreement was profound, we could still all go out together and try to solve all the world's problems over a coffee or a beer.

This is not what older Black people have told me about participating in the Civil Rights Movement. OTOH, I wasn't personally there.

[smhwpf]

Yeah, I don't remember any of our lot trying to call the cops on transphobe speakers.But "Free speech except for pro-Palestinians" seems to be completely normalised in the US, Germany, and to varying degrees Canada, the UK, France... probably missing some.

[sabotabby]

I haven't heard of anyone calling the cops on transphobes. Because we know part of the cops' job is to beat up trans people.