Once again, John Donegan uses the “liberal” straw man to bolster logically hazy talking points and incomplete thoughts.
In his column (“Free speech and the left,” Dec. 22), he claims that an unspecified swath of liberals worshiped billionaire Elon Musk until he purchased Twitter for $44 billion, and liberals went “apeshit.” Mr. Donegan indicated that the collective outrage from liberals over Musk was somehow an appeal to censorship, and that any terms they use to describe certain speech as “fake news,” “hate speech,” and “misinformation” are somehow a ploy to batter down narratives they don’t like.
Let’s go over the ways Mr. Donegan is ridiculously wrong to portray liberals as free speech abolitionists in the absence of specific examples.
The twice-impeached former President Donald Trump, a member of Mr. Donegan’s political party, was the one who used fake news as a blanket response to independently verifiable and corroborated reporting. Unlike others who have bandied the term for their own purposes, Trump believed some of the fake news wasn’t fake at all, which is why he used his presidential authority to retaliate against journalists who got under his overly tanned skin.
In October this year, Trump floated the possibility of imprisoning journalists who don’t name sources, should he get re-elected. That is objectively far more threatening to free speech than liberals disparaging disagreeable views and inconvenient truths with derision and spite.
Mr. Donegan scoffs at liberals using hate speech to describe actual hate speech.
It was Musk who personally suspended disgraced rapper Kanye West for what he described as “incitement of violence” against Jewish people when he tweeted out a photo of a symbol combining a swastika and a Jewish star. Just two months prior to that suspension, West, formerly a Trump supporter, was suspended for tweeting that he vowed to “go death con 3” on Jews. The rapper’s tweets are actual hate speech, which unfortunately spurred actual hate.
In Los Angeles, an extremist group hung a banner over a busy freeway proudly declaring that Kanye was “right.” In New York City, a 63-year-old man was assaulted by a man yelling antisemitic insults at the victim as well as endorsing West for president in 2024. The Anti-Defamation League, a world-renowned Jewish non-governmental organization, found that antisemitic incidents in our country reached an all-time high last year. West has fueled those antisemitic flames thanks in part to Musk and his erratic, touch-and-go attitude about “free speech” on Twitter.
Clearly, hate speech is not some liberal construct to diminish free expression. More often than not, it is precisely what it is.
Similar to hate speech, misinformation is also an objective identifier of certain kinds of speech. Let’s return to the Musk, well, once again, to shed light on what misinformation is.
Musk has repeatedly used his $44-billion bully pulpit to espouse misinformation. In October, Musk tweeted a link to unsubstantiated, homophobic allegations about the violent attack on Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband. Until it was deleted hours later, that tweet appeared on the timelines of his more than 112 million followers. And last month, Twitter stopped policing misinformation about COVID-19, allowing conspiracy theories about an ongoing pandemic and viable treatment options to fester. Musk then capped the dissolution of COVID-19 fact-checking by calling for Dr. Anthony Fauci, former chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, to be criminally prosecuted.
Free speech is not under threat by “woke” college students clamoring for “safe spaces,” as Mr. Donegan suggests, because they’re not the ones with the bully pulpit. They don’t have the clout to influence millions of people into believing apparent hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation. They don’t have the finances to buy influence. They’re not the ones in power.
I will readily concede to one of Mr. Donegan’s points: that there is a lack of tolerance for disagreeable views among certain segments of our population. But the impulse to reject disagreeable views and retreat to echo chambers or “safe spaces” is a bipartisan problem, so it’s wholly disingenuous to portray “woke” college students and liberals as the only existential threats to free speech.
People seeking accuracy, clarity, and context for free speech is not censorship. Those attributing labels to certain speech, whether or not those labels are accurately applied, is not censorship. And people holding others accountable for morally problematic speech is not censorship, either. That’s accountability. Free speech is not free of consequences.
Consequences have always existed within the framework of free market capitalism and the public square. Censorship refers to the literal taking of one’s fundamental right to express themselves as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That’s why the ACLU intervened in a legal case to support the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, Illinois, as Mr. Donegan pointed out.
Yet, it’s troubling that Mr. Donegan, a retired attorney, readily confuses consequences for censorship. Rest assured, Mr. Donegan, just because people disagree with your highfalutin’, myopic, and factually absent tirade about free speech doesn’t mean people want your right to free speech taken away. Δ
Aaron Ochs writes from Morro Bay. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Dec 29, 2022 – Jan 8, 2023.
I am pleased to see from Mr. Ochs piece that I have apparently hit a nerve when I criticized the Left for censorship. The predictable trotting out of Trump’s assorting gibberings, and the use of the antics of a rap star undergoing a highly publicized mental breakdown, in an effort to deflect from the issue, display a certain desperation in trying to convince us that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Left is not trying to censor opposing views.
Amusingly, following his claims that my censorship concerns are unfounded, and merely a “straw man”, Mr. Ochs then proceeds to lecture us on why blocking the publication of certain ideas that he disapproves of is such a necessity. Huh? Let’s have a little internal consistency, please.
Accountability? There is no dispute over the right to refuse to patronize those whose views you disagree with. However, the Left takes it further and uses organized “cancel culture” to punish those who they disagree with, even if they never previously patronized the offender. Witness the efforts to punish Netflicks for showing Chappelle’s fairly tame mocking of the some of the silly excesses of the transgender movement. And, of course, the recently disclosed role of the FBI in letting Twitter know what it should block, should alarm everyone. Any thinking person on the Left should consider the implications of normalizing a role of the law enforcement branch of the administration of the party in power, in dictating media views and content. There will come a time when the Democrats are no longer in power, and if the use of law enforcement agencies in “suggesting” what should be blocked becomes an accepted practice, well, Mr. Ochs and the liberals are likely to find themselves feeling pretty aggrieved. Imagine Trump with the power to determine what was acceptable to publish.
Mr. Och’s concerns would be more convincing if Musk was censoring any of the views of the Left. But he isn’t. He is just allowing more of the views of the Right.
Mr. Ochs can do all the semantic tap dancing he wants, but he is still advocating the blocking of certain content, and just flinging labels to justify the control. Call it whatever you want, but THAT is censorship.
John, I wasn’t going to write a comment underneath my own column but your response was too outlandishly hilarious to ignore. So I’ll give you a freebie.
The only desperation and deflection is coming from you since you’re addressing talking points I never actually made. Like where did I “lecture [readers] on blocking publication of certain ideas that [I] disapprove of is such a necessity”? When someone says something subjectively or ethically questionable, people will always react to it. That’s a consequence. If someone posts something that runs afoul of the terms of use on a privately owned social media platform, that platform can take action to remove the offensive comment. That’s a consequence that doesn’t infringe on one’s free speech rights. Why? Because free speech can only be impaired in a publicly owned space or entity, not a private business. So when you talk about “publication” of speech, consider where the publicized speech is conveyed. Not only are you confusing consequences for censorship, you’re confusing free speech in the public square with regulated content on private platforms.
John, if you write a column about “cancel culture,” I’ll gladly respond to it because that’s a subject in itself worth discussing. But for the sake of this discussion, I’ll just say that “cancel culture” is a misnomer. Why? Because — surprise, surprise — that’s all about consequences too.
Was Chappelle canceled? No. He’s selling out shows and Netflix remains close with him. He’s doing just fine. As far as how “relatively tame” Chappelle’s jokes about the transgender community go, I’ll leave that assessment to the LGBTQ+ community, who have long endured the violent and painful consequences of hate speech, including the most recent mass shooting at a Colorado gay nightclub just last month.
Did federal officials correspond with Twitter about suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story? No. Unlike you, John, I actually read the Twitter Files. The FBI gave Twitter a general “warning” about publishing foreign hacks or leaks, but that “warning” was not, in itself, a suppressive act. In fact, the one who initially released the Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi indicated there was an absence of government involvement in the laptop story. It was Elon Musk who wrongfully asserted that Twitter had acted “under orders from the government.”
If people want that speech blocked on a platform that prohibits it within their own guidelines, that’s their right to pursue that. Does that mean I personally believe in “blocking” content I disagree with? No. Nevertheless, we need to be cognizant of the ramifications of hate speech and misinformation when it’s left unchecked. I discussed those ramifications in my column, not as a point of deflection. Just education. Just the facts.
I’ll leave it up to you to handle the alternative facts, John, as you’re legally entitled to publish them — just as I’m legally entitled to publish my response to yours.
Gosh, Aaron, I am glad to see that I am not the only one who argues with comments on my own column. We “kooks” find it a lot of fun. But you are still engaged in semantic tap dancing.
You can tell that John is the top retired attorney in Pismo Beach because of all his great brain ideas from his mind:
“There will come a time when the Democrats are no longer in power.” Yeah, John. Imagine what the FBI, in the year 2020, during Donald Trump’s presidency, would have done if the Democrats were not in power. In 2020. A great point, from your retired lawyer brain.
“The Left takes it further and uses organized “cancel culture” to punish those who they disagree with.” Another great piece of retired legal advice. If I have had diarrhea in the last 14 days and my friend refuses to swim in my pool, well that’s fine. But if enough hotels decide to advertise that I am no longer allowed in the pool – that’s cancel culture. Also health code. But! It’s also censorship! No semantics there, just good law thoughts.
Thank you, John. Thank you for being so sharp, and logically consistent. It’s an honor just to watch one of the top retired legal minds work so tirelessly, week in and week out, just to trigger so much criticism. Because isn’t that truly the sign of a great mind – the downvotes? In the words of one of our founding fathers “You’re all booing me, so I must be right.”
We could eliminate all this confusion about free speech, cancel culture, etc. if we just get back to basics. The 1st Amendment starts out “Congress shall make no law…’ so anyone aggrieved about their religion or free speech, press or right to assemble being attacked should cite which law was passed or STFU.
Steve, so when a school board declines to, say, carry sexual instruction manuals in it’s library, you liberals will stop shrieking “censorship!” because they are not Congress and it is not a law?
Repeatedly and throughout 2022, Donegan raised sexual concerns to make his points. Does he have a perpetual political hard-on for this subject? Perhaps a stirring in his legal loins to unlimber on this topic, or maybe a sign of a stiffened resolve? Dunno. Enough! Wishing all Rhetoric and Reason writers and commentators a New Year of truth and justice.
John, not in the literal sense. I would consider it more of a deriliction of duty or violation of civil rights.
Well, Gordon, as a member of a group who seems to relentlessly obsess over the sexual, including a bizarre and unseemly obsession with “educating” young children on matters of sex, you are an improbable person to question anyone. I mean, my original comment above only touched on some of the well-recognized excesses of the transgender movement – you know, like 37 different genders, etc. My later comment mentioned the latest liberal panic over conservative “censorship” in limiting school materials to age-appropriate subjects, yet you immediately go to your not-so-secret fixation. Your double entendres reveal much more about what concerns you, than they reflect on me.
John, Censorship?
Perhaps look to see who is banning books, which states
https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-…
I guess it was Gavin Newsome who was objecting to the free speech of Corps like Disney right?
“DeSantis tramples on Disney’s freedom of speech”
Florida’s war on Disney violates First Amendment
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/…
Without false premises, distortions and lies what would the right wing EVER have?
“But let’s rewind.
Let’s remember it was the Conservative, Right Wing that forced Prohibition on America. It was the Right Wing Conservatives who created the Red Scare, who wanted Dungeons and Dragons banned, who still ban books today.
They were the ones who wanted Elvis stopped from wiggling his hips, they thought Hippies should be silenced, they don’t want employees taking about Unionizing.
They wanted Rock music banned, then Rap.
They forced record companies to add warning labels. They continue to want twerking banned from TV. They wanted certain shows on Broadway shut down.
They still don’t want to hear swear words, they want to ban gay characters on TV. Remember Ellen DeGeneres?
Remember how they wanted Rock Hudson movies banned when they learned he was gay?
Right Wing Conservatives want to censor everyone else, except who?
The people spreading hate speech and disinformation.
That’s why they’ve suddenly become like Hippies – preaching Free Speech.
Now they’re acting like they invented it..”
Well, Jon, just who on the left has Elon Musk censored?
John Donegan
Got it you can’t answer for book banning and Desantis so you throw a loop with Musk who IS banning anyone who worked for him for criticizing him or the guy tracking his jet? You know the guy he said he wouldn’t ban?
“Elon Musk Fires Twitter Employees Who Criticized Him
Mr. Musk, who is rapidly transforming the social media company, also has cut its contractor work force.”
Elon Musk faced a growing backlash on Friday from lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic, with threats of fines and sanctions, after Twitter suspended the accounts of at least eight journalists on Thursday without warning.”
“Musk confirmed he’d fired employees after they spoke out in Twitter and even the company’s private Slack. Platformer’s sources say 20 people have been fired for Slack posts so far.”
Free speech absolutist huh? lol