“We need to suppress opinions that don’t align with the narrative of who I agree with to save democracy”. You’re very very very dumb. Whoever is telling you you’re smart is also dumb.
"Dare I say that harsher laws should be passed to punish those who participate in noxious, hysterical cancel mobs. This would be tantamount to saying that free speech should be supported, but speech aimed at cancelling or otherwise discouraging others to practice their speech must be punished by the law."
This is tantamount to saying that in order to have free speech we must police speech. You are advocating for exactly the same thing your opponents are.
People should be allowed to advocate (with their speech) for someone's cancellation just as much as you should be allowed to speak against such a culture. It the actual cancelling, deplatforming, and suppression of speech that should have legal ramifications, not the speech itself.
You cannot incite a mob to violence. You shouldn’t be able to incite a mob to deprive someone of their speech.
You also cannot harass people in real life. There are laws against that too. Why shouldn’t there be laws against forms of harassment that threaten to deprive people of their careers and livelihood?
Furthermore, although your situation would be ideal, it is in practice impossible to protect people downstream of cancel mobs given current institutional arrangements. It might be possible to strengthen those institutional arrangements, and I would be in favor of that. But such reforms would also require disruptive new laws.
I’m open to alternative suggestions. High-flying principles are clearly not adequate either way. They have failed, and the current situation is an indication of that. If the current situation is an acceptable tradeoff to you, OK. It’s not an acceptable tradeoff to me. Something needs to be done.
I share your contempt for cancel culture, and I agree that the incitement of violence and harassment should have legal consequences. It seems that what you are proposing (correct me if I'm wrong) is a prohibition on speech that advocates for someone to be fired, be dropped from the line-up of an event, have access to a digital platform revoked, and the like. If such speech crossed the line into harassment then yes, consequences should follow. If such speech deliberately incites mass harassment or violence then consequences should follow. However, the notion that someone who simply voices an opinion in favour of another's cancellation should be punishable by law seems problematic and antithetical to the "high-flying" principles of free speech. I believe that we abandon such principles at our peril, and I fear that the laws you propose will not be used in the way that you would like them to be used.
In the end, cancel culture is a cultural problem and I'm not so sure we can legislate our way out of it. I believe that a concerted effort from individuals such as yourself to shift the cultural landscape will be more effective and have less unwanted consequences than any kind of political force. That's just my two cents. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
More laws, less justice. You are proposing cancel culture, but in the "opposite" direction of today. Shutting down opposing views is just that. Free speech means hearing what we don't want to hear. Any limit or laws enacted is a slippery slope away from free speech. What we need is to bring back healthy moderated debates. The only debates we've seen on MSM are the presidential debates. The rules imposed but the committees to protect the candidate were draconian and I'm not convinced the rules delivered the desired outcome. Legislation is not the answer, open honest debates, like the kind I learned in high school debate class, in front of the population are what's needed.
Yep and those action instill fear and makes others less likely to speak out. It's effective, but in the wrong way, you'll get no disagreement from me on that.
Cancel culture, like many ideals, began with good intentions. Cancel Culture attempts to hold people accountable for their words (which may be the wrong approach) and accountable for their actions. Typically cancel culture results in some type of public shunning or "blocking" people and/or not purchasing product. The idea on its surface seems good. But once the mob gets involved, it can, and often does, turn into a modern day lynching, subverting the good intentions. Along with the advent of social media we seem more willing to allow the mob to rule. I see it constantly on X. The speed of social media exacerbates the problem. What used to be voting with our feet became the instantaneous voice of the mob, and typically the mob doesn't have or doesn't care about all of the facts. You can't change human nature and there is nothing as uruly as a mob bent on getting it's due. But I don't believe more legislation is the answer. Instead, common sense, discussion, cooler heads, debate, remembering (or learning) morals and values of decency and respect, do unto others, and the majority holding each other accountable. I believe we've failed by not teaching our children proper civic values and morals. The results are what we see. One example of lack of morals just look at the debacle that is the Olympics, from the opening ceremony to allowing XY beat the heck out of XX.
But hope springs eternal, and i believe that we will get better and stop some of this madness. I see good debate happening here on Substack and it is encouraging. Carry on Mr Bass!
First amendment only covers government institutions and does not protect from cancelation when those canceling hide that the cancelation is taking place because of public views
That is very psychologically insightful about cancellation and sadism. I appreciate that.
That said, I don't see why the motivation impinges on whether or not a law should exist. People are going to be homicidal whether or not there is a law that gives severe punishments to murderers. Despite not changing homicidality, it's still a good idea to have such a law, because it deters murder. It does not have to prevent all murders for it to be a good law. It doesn't have to change murderers into non-homicidal people. To be a good law, it just has to deter murders.
I don't see why a law forbidding harassing and cancelling one's Internet enemies wouldn't work for the same reason. I'm not proposing the law as a means to change bad people into good people. I'm only proposing it as a means of reducing the number of cancellation attempts made by bad people. Psychopaths and sadists are gonna psychopath and sadist, but at least they can do it a little less in the domain of free and open discussion.
Nah. That's quite akin to "We need to cancel democracy in order to save democracy". We need less laws. Not more.
The right to free speech is part of the constitution. Would you like to get rid of that law as well?
“We need to suppress opinions that don’t align with the narrative of who I agree with to save democracy”. You’re very very very dumb. Whoever is telling you you’re smart is also dumb.
It’s not opinions. It’s incitement to ruin a person’s career.
"Dare I say that harsher laws should be passed to punish those who participate in noxious, hysterical cancel mobs. This would be tantamount to saying that free speech should be supported, but speech aimed at cancelling or otherwise discouraging others to practice their speech must be punished by the law."
This is tantamount to saying that in order to have free speech we must police speech. You are advocating for exactly the same thing your opponents are.
People should be allowed to advocate (with their speech) for someone's cancellation just as much as you should be allowed to speak against such a culture. It the actual cancelling, deplatforming, and suppression of speech that should have legal ramifications, not the speech itself.
You cannot incite a mob to violence. You shouldn’t be able to incite a mob to deprive someone of their speech.
You also cannot harass people in real life. There are laws against that too. Why shouldn’t there be laws against forms of harassment that threaten to deprive people of their careers and livelihood?
Furthermore, although your situation would be ideal, it is in practice impossible to protect people downstream of cancel mobs given current institutional arrangements. It might be possible to strengthen those institutional arrangements, and I would be in favor of that. But such reforms would also require disruptive new laws.
I’m open to alternative suggestions. High-flying principles are clearly not adequate either way. They have failed, and the current situation is an indication of that. If the current situation is an acceptable tradeoff to you, OK. It’s not an acceptable tradeoff to me. Something needs to be done.
I share your contempt for cancel culture, and I agree that the incitement of violence and harassment should have legal consequences. It seems that what you are proposing (correct me if I'm wrong) is a prohibition on speech that advocates for someone to be fired, be dropped from the line-up of an event, have access to a digital platform revoked, and the like. If such speech crossed the line into harassment then yes, consequences should follow. If such speech deliberately incites mass harassment or violence then consequences should follow. However, the notion that someone who simply voices an opinion in favour of another's cancellation should be punishable by law seems problematic and antithetical to the "high-flying" principles of free speech. I believe that we abandon such principles at our peril, and I fear that the laws you propose will not be used in the way that you would like them to be used.
In the end, cancel culture is a cultural problem and I'm not so sure we can legislate our way out of it. I believe that a concerted effort from individuals such as yourself to shift the cultural landscape will be more effective and have less unwanted consequences than any kind of political force. That's just my two cents. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
The above writing is very dangerous for humanity.
More laws, less justice. You are proposing cancel culture, but in the "opposite" direction of today. Shutting down opposing views is just that. Free speech means hearing what we don't want to hear. Any limit or laws enacted is a slippery slope away from free speech. What we need is to bring back healthy moderated debates. The only debates we've seen on MSM are the presidential debates. The rules imposed but the committees to protect the candidate were draconian and I'm not convinced the rules delivered the desired outcome. Legislation is not the answer, open honest debates, like the kind I learned in high school debate class, in front of the population are what's needed.
You can get canceled for saying the wrong thing in an open debate.
Yep and those action instill fear and makes others less likely to speak out. It's effective, but in the wrong way, you'll get no disagreement from me on that.
Cancel culture, like many ideals, began with good intentions. Cancel Culture attempts to hold people accountable for their words (which may be the wrong approach) and accountable for their actions. Typically cancel culture results in some type of public shunning or "blocking" people and/or not purchasing product. The idea on its surface seems good. But once the mob gets involved, it can, and often does, turn into a modern day lynching, subverting the good intentions. Along with the advent of social media we seem more willing to allow the mob to rule. I see it constantly on X. The speed of social media exacerbates the problem. What used to be voting with our feet became the instantaneous voice of the mob, and typically the mob doesn't have or doesn't care about all of the facts. You can't change human nature and there is nothing as uruly as a mob bent on getting it's due. But I don't believe more legislation is the answer. Instead, common sense, discussion, cooler heads, debate, remembering (or learning) morals and values of decency and respect, do unto others, and the majority holding each other accountable. I believe we've failed by not teaching our children proper civic values and morals. The results are what we see. One example of lack of morals just look at the debacle that is the Olympics, from the opening ceremony to allowing XY beat the heck out of XX.
But hope springs eternal, and i believe that we will get better and stop some of this madness. I see good debate happening here on Substack and it is encouraging. Carry on Mr Bass!
I think we already have a “law” that does what you suggest, ie the First Amendment. The issue is enforcement.
First amendment only covers government institutions and does not protect from cancelation when those canceling hide that the cancelation is taking place because of public views
Did I say we need to abolish all laws? Obviously "less laws" does not include the constitution.
That is very psychologically insightful about cancellation and sadism. I appreciate that.
That said, I don't see why the motivation impinges on whether or not a law should exist. People are going to be homicidal whether or not there is a law that gives severe punishments to murderers. Despite not changing homicidality, it's still a good idea to have such a law, because it deters murder. It does not have to prevent all murders for it to be a good law. It doesn't have to change murderers into non-homicidal people. To be a good law, it just has to deter murders.
I don't see why a law forbidding harassing and cancelling one's Internet enemies wouldn't work for the same reason. I'm not proposing the law as a means to change bad people into good people. I'm only proposing it as a means of reducing the number of cancellation attempts made by bad people. Psychopaths and sadists are gonna psychopath and sadist, but at least they can do it a little less in the domain of free and open discussion.