Thank you for weighing in, Elizabeth. I am firmly on the side of those who see essential caveats in the 'free speech unless someone is actually harmed' belief.
I'm firmly on the side of the letter writers to the Substack owners, and have published my own, as well as defended the others on Notes.
I'm not here to argue my points again, but I'll simply say the rush to defend hate speech as free speech is the gift that keeps on giving for the haters.
There's no denying that this proliferation of hatred toward anyone who doesn't go along with whatever the haters demand is hideously harmful. We see it in action every day in this country. We elected a hater as president, and now we have an entire sector in Congress full of haters. Hate has become normalized, and giving them the freedom to speak without consequences has only made their movement grow.
Substack is a private company. They can do as they please, of course, but they can't expect to allow and encourage those blatant haters without some pushback. They need to explain.
There are no gray areas with the haters we're pointing out. Their entire existence on Substack is to promote hate. To turn it into a simple 'free speech' issue is to give them permission to keep on.
I agree with Ramona below; I likewise am on the side of those who favor free speech unless actual harm comes about. And, of course, I know YOU KNOW your article immediately brought to my mind our religious controversy (disaffiliation v. stay united, and I won't go further here as you know whereof I speak...). Our world is consumed by these controversies, and like you, I feel as if I am on the outer edges because I have been afraid of the murkiness in the center. I will say this; sometimes you just have to jump in the water. I jumped, and I sleep better now for having made that leap, that decision, heart-wrenching as it was and continues to be. Love you, and all the questions you raise!
In a way, I probably have no right to comment as The First (and indeed your terrifying Second Amendment) has no significance to me living far from the USA.
The trouble is that the world is full of imitators and we have our own share. And the world through time repeats history. Over and over, learning nothing. What makes it worse these days is media-coverage: mainstream and social. It allows people to openly machinate under safe cover and that can be and is, terrifying.
I've thought long and hard since reading Katz's article and subsequently the Substack letter that Ramona shared. I despise hate speech and hate action, of that there is no doubt. But Substack is probably one of the best forms of social media for me - it allows me to write and indulge the poetic side of my life without fear of rejection. If I'm rejected at all, I get a notification that said rejecter has cancelled their sub. And that's fine. I've done the same with accounts that don't gel for me. Is that enough? Does it protect my (our) sensibilities?
When I look at the people to whom I subscribe, they are of a kind - they make me feel safe and contented in an essentially unsafe and disconnected world. Is that enough? Because it's me voluntarily subscribing, it has to be.
I live on a tiny island that I have often called a pimple on the arse-end of the world. What I think, what I say and how I act has little influence on the greater world. But what I would really like is for my posts to be a haven for people in tough times.
I'm putting a great deal of faith in Substack for that never to change.
Thank you so much for your always reasoned and harmonious views on life. It is appreciated from down here at the bottom.
Thanks for this post, Elizabeth. I appreciate the honesty and nuance you bring to this debate. It’s refreshing in a world that’s increasingly simplified to this way or that with no in between.
Yes! I feel like there is a good sized group of us who have sympathies with both sides, with the tiebreaker being “how?” One can bemoan that it’s not our job as users to propose a fix, but until one is described I fall back on the old saw “if you don’t got a solution you don’t got a problem”.
I was actively on Notes for the whole kerfuffle, so I can unfortunately report that I didn’t see single mind changed throughout the arguments.
I guess maybe me? At first, I leaned towards the “absolutist” but reading the back and forth made me slightly soften my stance because (like 99% of us) I hate Nazi’s too. But at my core I’ve always been a practical dude so the “conversation” has only led me back to my natural tendency to side on the question of implementation.
I find that most online arguments end like this. None of the participants’ minds are changed in any significant fashion, just sharpened in their original positions.
Thank you for weighing in, Elizabeth. I am firmly on the side of those who see essential caveats in the 'free speech unless someone is actually harmed' belief.
I'm firmly on the side of the letter writers to the Substack owners, and have published my own, as well as defended the others on Notes.
I'm not here to argue my points again, but I'll simply say the rush to defend hate speech as free speech is the gift that keeps on giving for the haters.
There's no denying that this proliferation of hatred toward anyone who doesn't go along with whatever the haters demand is hideously harmful. We see it in action every day in this country. We elected a hater as president, and now we have an entire sector in Congress full of haters. Hate has become normalized, and giving them the freedom to speak without consequences has only made their movement grow.
Substack is a private company. They can do as they please, of course, but they can't expect to allow and encourage those blatant haters without some pushback. They need to explain.
There are no gray areas with the haters we're pointing out. Their entire existence on Substack is to promote hate. To turn it into a simple 'free speech' issue is to give them permission to keep on.
What's to stop them then?
I agree with Ramona below; I likewise am on the side of those who favor free speech unless actual harm comes about. And, of course, I know YOU KNOW your article immediately brought to my mind our religious controversy (disaffiliation v. stay united, and I won't go further here as you know whereof I speak...). Our world is consumed by these controversies, and like you, I feel as if I am on the outer edges because I have been afraid of the murkiness in the center. I will say this; sometimes you just have to jump in the water. I jumped, and I sleep better now for having made that leap, that decision, heart-wrenching as it was and continues to be. Love you, and all the questions you raise!
I battle the same battle... You have helped me at least in the discipline of processing...
What a reasoned, intellectual view Elizabeth.
In a way, I probably have no right to comment as The First (and indeed your terrifying Second Amendment) has no significance to me living far from the USA.
The trouble is that the world is full of imitators and we have our own share. And the world through time repeats history. Over and over, learning nothing. What makes it worse these days is media-coverage: mainstream and social. It allows people to openly machinate under safe cover and that can be and is, terrifying.
I've thought long and hard since reading Katz's article and subsequently the Substack letter that Ramona shared. I despise hate speech and hate action, of that there is no doubt. But Substack is probably one of the best forms of social media for me - it allows me to write and indulge the poetic side of my life without fear of rejection. If I'm rejected at all, I get a notification that said rejecter has cancelled their sub. And that's fine. I've done the same with accounts that don't gel for me. Is that enough? Does it protect my (our) sensibilities?
When I look at the people to whom I subscribe, they are of a kind - they make me feel safe and contented in an essentially unsafe and disconnected world. Is that enough? Because it's me voluntarily subscribing, it has to be.
I live on a tiny island that I have often called a pimple on the arse-end of the world. What I think, what I say and how I act has little influence on the greater world. But what I would really like is for my posts to be a haven for people in tough times.
I'm putting a great deal of faith in Substack for that never to change.
Thank you so much for your always reasoned and harmonious views on life. It is appreciated from down here at the bottom.
I
I think you speak for me too, Elizabeth. And thank you for putting your thinking into words.
Thanks for this post, Elizabeth. I appreciate the honesty and nuance you bring to this debate. It’s refreshing in a world that’s increasingly simplified to this way or that with no in between.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your thoughtful and beautiful piece!
Yes! I feel like there is a good sized group of us who have sympathies with both sides, with the tiebreaker being “how?” One can bemoan that it’s not our job as users to propose a fix, but until one is described I fall back on the old saw “if you don’t got a solution you don’t got a problem”.
I was actively on Notes for the whole kerfuffle, so I can unfortunately report that I didn’t see single mind changed throughout the arguments.
I guess maybe me? At first, I leaned towards the “absolutist” but reading the back and forth made me slightly soften my stance because (like 99% of us) I hate Nazi’s too. But at my core I’ve always been a practical dude so the “conversation” has only led me back to my natural tendency to side on the question of implementation.
I find that most online arguments end like this. None of the participants’ minds are changed in any significant fashion, just sharpened in their original positions.