There are grave violations of free speech occurring daily for a few months. Critics of this administration and law enforcement have been arrested, permanently injured, and killed for speaking out. Journalists have been targeted. This is a far more emergent violation of speech.
The letter mentions Trump is “illiberal,” he is a “threat to democracy,” that they expect the far right to try to quash speech. But there is nothing about how that far right, controlling the executive branch and much law enforcement, is violently quashing speech right now.
I am a writer. I have been subject to harassment for things I’ve said online. It sucks. I’ve refrained from saying things I believed to be true because I don’t want to deal with angry criticism. That sucks. But others are using their speech against me. That’s how it works.
The writers argue that bad ideas die of exposure. What, exactly, is supposed to happen when such bad ideas are exposed? What does it mean for a bad idea to be defeated? How do you know a bad idea is finally defeated unless large swathes of people vociferously disagree with it?
The reason to defend free speech should not be that it kills bad ideas. It can sometimes, but sometimes it doesn’t. Rather, free speech should be defended as a vital of autonomy from government interference. As with any autonomous voices, the consequences may not always be sunny.
I made a typo in the very first tweet of the thread, the one that’s supposed to sell you on the usefulness of my thoughts! Accckkk!
Consequences for bad speech are not antithetical to a marketplace of ideas. They are part of that marketplace.
I avoided accusing any signers of hypocrisy, but I do wish to note, because it sparks joy in me, that Salman Rushdie blocked me on Twitter. (In his defense, I called him an asshole and I would totally block for that. In my defense, he was being an asshole.)
You can follow @epicciuto.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: