This is a timely reminder of how Mill's warning against the tyranny of the majority hasn't aged a day, and I appreciate how this piece of writing shows Mill's defence of free speech and free expression is the most important argument we have.
I share your “ fear returning to a culture which empowers mob rule and makes people very vulnerable to whatever moral orthodoxy holds sway at any time.” From opinion polls, it is clear that we are moving in that direction.
Is not true, however, that shared social taboos are a key bulwark against this culture? Is it not true that Liberal institutions rely on those shared social taboos more than it relies on law enforcement to avoid moving towards that culture?
These issues are obviously complicated, but I think it is reasonable for individuals to police a strong taboo against public celebrations of the murder of a law-abiding citizen, particularly one who loved by a significant portion of society. If we do not want law enforcement to get involved then we need to count on individuals to punish transgressors of that important taboo.
Social media algorithms are clearly amplifying and giving positive feedback to those who violate this important taboo. Why should there not be a balancing force that does not include law enforcement?
I am afraid if we just ignore or hand-wave away tens of thousands of public celebrations of murder on social media, then we are increasing the chances of “ returning to a culture which empowers mob rule and makes people very vulnerable to whatever moral orthodoxy holds sway at any time.”
Liberal societies do not just rely on Liberal institutions to work. It may also require more than citizens who respect free speech.
We have different level of tolerance versus censorship (legally or socially).
Maximum censorship includes punishment to express any critique and disagreement. (as for Galileo). Maximum level of tolerance is Stuart Mill maximize freedom of expression in any case is not a precise manifesto or plan preceding physical violence.
Middle grey positions can distinguishes between jokes or critique versus defamation or incitement depending on the context.
But.
For me the most important golden rule is: whatever you fu**ing establish as a rule, is fine for me IF and ONLY IF it is forced on everybody, including presidents and immigrants, students and teachers, jailed people and police officers, bishops and psychopaths.
Three quick thoughts: 1. People can have opinions about anything and everything. 2. People most of the time should not express these positions publicly (your spouse and that friend you tell the best jokes are the obvious exceptions). 3. All social media should come with a time delay where you are asked, after 30 minutes, "Do you really want to post that?"
In the near future there will be an AI feature on social media that will just tell you "this tweet will get your ass fired".
Great article Helen; true to the underlying principles of what liberalism actually is (as opposed to a fashionable political insult), well reasoned and well articulated - thanks. Unfortunately, the nuance, context, rationale and other key points that you cover so well, are exactly the points most often missing from discussions (and perceptions) of "free speech". Maybe "cancel culture" is now a hinderance? As you point out, creeping authoritarianism, from wherever it comes, is the underlying issue. Maybe "Authoritarian Culture" is more appropriate - and , ironically, more "inclusive"!
I have a quibble and a question about an edge case...
Quibble:
If "Cancel Culture" is the ancient human institution, what do we call this new thing where a minority punches above its weight to render norms unacceptable and people in authority cave to it and the rules keep changing retroactively?
Edge Case:
What if you though an employer really *should* fire somebody for obvious safeguarding reasons, but the employer took the tack "lalala we're diverse I can't hear you"?
It's a variation on the same thing for the purposes of authoritarianism and an attempt to impose a common good on everybody. It's happened before because only a small number of people are authoritarian activists but the culture believes it is good or fears being seen as mad if they don't comply with it. We saw this during the Reformation where people were being Catholic, Protestant and then Catholic again and published retrospectively. And this was part of Maoism. That said, it doesn't do to flatten all distinctions. The 'woke' phenomenon needs to be addressed as its own thing and on its own terms.
Yes, quite possibly. People called wokeism cancel culture, because we'd had a nice lull where people could have a range of views without being socially policed and penalised for them. It's certainly all the same thing from a liberal perspective and fair to point out the illiberal right that trying to get people fired for horrible views is something they opposed for good reason very recently.
When people in certain professions are fired for the explicit celebration or promotion of violence, that is OK...but in other jobs, a woman should be expected to work alongside a man who uses violent rhetoric regarding "TERFS?" To be clear, we are talking specifically about praising or advocating violence, not other ugly political insults.
Sono completamente d'accordo, vorrei solo aggiungere, per chiarezza,essendo un argomento molto importante: ( in uno stato di diritto liberale) ,si possono esprimere parole di odio ,la differenza,tra il lecito e illecito è semplice, le mie parole non devono INCITARE IN MODO DIRETTO ED IMMEDIATO alla causa del danno fisico ,se durante una protesta davanti a casa di una persona invito la folla ad incendiario ( fatto diretto e immediato) commetto un illecito da perseguire penalmente . Se faccio la stessa cosa da lontano ( dal mio telefono ) e in altri tempi ( giorni prima ) Non commetto illecito ,solo una stupida e odiosa ,libertà.
We now have the people at the top of the government threatening that negative or mocking statements about Kirk, who was for many of us an extremely offensive presence in public life, will result in action being taken against you. See the BBC article from yesterday:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o. The last remaining black woman writer at The Washington Post was very recently fired merely for quoting words Kirk had spoken alleging that black women have cognitive capacity inferior to that of white males.
He was that kind of racist — he had those kinds of thoughts, and voiced them aloud to millions of followers — and if he had the right to be that way, and he did under our legal system, then surely others have a right to be glad that he is out of the picture and will not be continuing to poison the soup for the next 40 years. But just quoting his outrageous statements is getting people fired from jobs. There is video of him advocating public executions and stating that children should be taken to see them. And there seems to be an expectation that we’re supposed to pretend that things like that were never said.
I’m sorry he was murdered; I would have much rather he had fallen to a disease or an auto accident. I worry that one if the great young hopes in the Democratic Party might now be assassinated in retaliation (highly likely, given that right wing extremists are responsible for 75% of politically motivated murders committed in this country over the last 10 years).
But to have the state demanding either grief or silence has echoes of North Korea. When Kim Jong Il died, there were people who were sent to labor/death camps because they were accused of crying tears that were not sincere. I don’t expect quite that, but I don’t feel any certainty like I once might have.
I never expected to hear what I’m hearing from a vice president (and one who is likely to become president soon, at that, given Trump’s failing health).
It’s unnerving to not be able to predict what is coming next; all we know is that it’s going to be bad.
"I’m sorry he was murdered; I would have much rather he had fallen to a disease or an auto accident." Wow aren't you one of the good ones?! Did you read the article? Helen was literally writing about why it is wrong to be fired for saying abhorrent things, as long as it doesn't interfere with the actual requirements of the job or cause reputational damage to the company that may affect its business. Do you think that perhaps you a missing the point here. Rather than assuming the future is bad, be part of the solution by having good faith arguments and convincing people with reasoned debate. Wishing someone dead who disagreed with you, is becoming part of the problem, creating a permission culture of death as a a solution to disagreement.
I did not wish him dead. The point is: I don’t mourn his passing. He should not have been murdered; no one should be murdered. You have misread what I wrote. My point is that we now have a government threatening the livelihood and well-being of those who point out what a flawed and unsavory character he was. I feel a responsibility to exercise my free speech rights especially when I find them being challenged.
As for being “one of the good ones”: I made no claim to virtue, but if you want to pass a negative judgment on me, go ahead.
Fair enough, if I mistook the meaning of your comment, then my apologies. It was just a strange way of putting it. It sounded to me like you were saying its good that he is dead, but it's only a shame that he was assassinated, instead of dying in a car accident. But full apologies if I got that wrong.
There’s a lot here, and it’s obvious you’re very sincere in your beliefs. However, I’d encourage to go watch the full videos those clips of Charlie Kirk were taken from, and see what he was actually saying.
As an example, if I were to say “Some people believe that women are inferior to men, but I don’t think that’s true.” it would be technically correct (but still very deceptive) to quote me as saying “women are inferior to men”, even though that’s the opposite of what I was trying to say. You could even show a video clip of me uttering the words “women are inferior to men” and many people might be convinced that that was my view.
You may likely find that you still disagree with some of Kirk’s views. I disagree with some of Kirk’s views. But you will find that he did not, in any meaningful sense, express the views you’ve stated, although I’ve watched some of the same deceptively edited videos that you obviously have that try to make it appear that he advocated for these things.
I traced the oldest case of documented cancel culture to Cain and Abel, coinciding with the world's first belly buttons. Sad to say, this means cancel culture and belly buttons are correlated at least.
I am not sure if this is a criticism of Helen or just a general statement, but if is a criticism of Helen- it is a remarkably strange one. She has spent goodness knows how many hours of her life criticising the censuriousness of the left. She even wrote a book about it.
Here is a related post worth reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewdoyle/p/the-oxford-union-and-the-free-speech?r=23ix4k&utm_medium=ios
This is a timely reminder of how Mill's warning against the tyranny of the majority hasn't aged a day, and I appreciate how this piece of writing shows Mill's defence of free speech and free expression is the most important argument we have.
Thank you for the phrase, “callous arsehole”! I shall make good use of it.
I share your “ fear returning to a culture which empowers mob rule and makes people very vulnerable to whatever moral orthodoxy holds sway at any time.” From opinion polls, it is clear that we are moving in that direction.
Is not true, however, that shared social taboos are a key bulwark against this culture? Is it not true that Liberal institutions rely on those shared social taboos more than it relies on law enforcement to avoid moving towards that culture?
These issues are obviously complicated, but I think it is reasonable for individuals to police a strong taboo against public celebrations of the murder of a law-abiding citizen, particularly one who loved by a significant portion of society. If we do not want law enforcement to get involved then we need to count on individuals to punish transgressors of that important taboo.
Social media algorithms are clearly amplifying and giving positive feedback to those who violate this important taboo. Why should there not be a balancing force that does not include law enforcement?
I am afraid if we just ignore or hand-wave away tens of thousands of public celebrations of murder on social media, then we are increasing the chances of “ returning to a culture which empowers mob rule and makes people very vulnerable to whatever moral orthodoxy holds sway at any time.”
Liberal societies do not just rely on Liberal institutions to work. It may also require more than citizens who respect free speech.
We have different level of tolerance versus censorship (legally or socially).
Maximum censorship includes punishment to express any critique and disagreement. (as for Galileo). Maximum level of tolerance is Stuart Mill maximize freedom of expression in any case is not a precise manifesto or plan preceding physical violence.
Middle grey positions can distinguishes between jokes or critique versus defamation or incitement depending on the context.
But.
For me the most important golden rule is: whatever you fu**ing establish as a rule, is fine for me IF and ONLY IF it is forced on everybody, including presidents and immigrants, students and teachers, jailed people and police officers, bishops and psychopaths.
Three quick thoughts: 1. People can have opinions about anything and everything. 2. People most of the time should not express these positions publicly (your spouse and that friend you tell the best jokes are the obvious exceptions). 3. All social media should come with a time delay where you are asked, after 30 minutes, "Do you really want to post that?"
In the near future there will be an AI feature on social media that will just tell you "this tweet will get your ass fired".
The man that invents this is going to be a multi-billionaire
Hey there why you call X a hellsite I am still there and my feelings might hurt
Great article Helen; true to the underlying principles of what liberalism actually is (as opposed to a fashionable political insult), well reasoned and well articulated - thanks. Unfortunately, the nuance, context, rationale and other key points that you cover so well, are exactly the points most often missing from discussions (and perceptions) of "free speech". Maybe "cancel culture" is now a hinderance? As you point out, creeping authoritarianism, from wherever it comes, is the underlying issue. Maybe "Authoritarian Culture" is more appropriate - and , ironically, more "inclusive"!
Thanks! Yes, I think we need to broaden the scope and return to first principles. Am writing a piece about that right now for Monday.
I have a quibble and a question about an edge case...
Quibble:
If "Cancel Culture" is the ancient human institution, what do we call this new thing where a minority punches above its weight to render norms unacceptable and people in authority cave to it and the rules keep changing retroactively?
Edge Case:
What if you though an employer really *should* fire somebody for obvious safeguarding reasons, but the employer took the tack "lalala we're diverse I can't hear you"?
It's a variation on the same thing for the purposes of authoritarianism and an attempt to impose a common good on everybody. It's happened before because only a small number of people are authoritarian activists but the culture believes it is good or fears being seen as mad if they don't comply with it. We saw this during the Reformation where people were being Catholic, Protestant and then Catholic again and published retrospectively. And this was part of Maoism. That said, it doesn't do to flatten all distinctions. The 'woke' phenomenon needs to be addressed as its own thing and on its own terms.
Then we can object for good reason.
So if I've got this right...? (Sorry, editted)
There's "Shunning".
Then there's "Cancelling" where people - often a majority - force other people to shun the victim.
Then "Cancel Culture" is where zealots go proactively looking for reasons to cancel somebody, and the rules may be subject to retroactive change.
Finally, "Woke Cancel Culture", when the ideology is wokeism.
I still think we need a generic term for when the cancellers are punching above their weight.
Yes, quite possibly. People called wokeism cancel culture, because we'd had a nice lull where people could have a range of views without being socially policed and penalised for them. It's certainly all the same thing from a liberal perspective and fair to point out the illiberal right that trying to get people fired for horrible views is something they opposed for good reason very recently.
Hence the term "Woke Right".
When people in certain professions are fired for the explicit celebration or promotion of violence, that is OK...but in other jobs, a woman should be expected to work alongside a man who uses violent rhetoric regarding "TERFS?" To be clear, we are talking specifically about praising or advocating violence, not other ugly political insults.
I address that here:
https://www.hpluckrose.com/p/the-difference-between-incitement-66c
Sono completamente d'accordo, vorrei solo aggiungere, per chiarezza,essendo un argomento molto importante: ( in uno stato di diritto liberale) ,si possono esprimere parole di odio ,la differenza,tra il lecito e illecito è semplice, le mie parole non devono INCITARE IN MODO DIRETTO ED IMMEDIATO alla causa del danno fisico ,se durante una protesta davanti a casa di una persona invito la folla ad incendiario ( fatto diretto e immediato) commetto un illecito da perseguire penalmente . Se faccio la stessa cosa da lontano ( dal mio telefono ) e in altri tempi ( giorni prima ) Non commetto illecito ,solo una stupida e odiosa ,libertà.
Un'amico italiano
Saluti
Is it still Cancel Culture when it's driven by powerful politicians implicitly threatening to leverage the apparatus of the state?
We now have the people at the top of the government threatening that negative or mocking statements about Kirk, who was for many of us an extremely offensive presence in public life, will result in action being taken against you. See the BBC article from yesterday:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o. The last remaining black woman writer at The Washington Post was very recently fired merely for quoting words Kirk had spoken alleging that black women have cognitive capacity inferior to that of white males.
He was that kind of racist — he had those kinds of thoughts, and voiced them aloud to millions of followers — and if he had the right to be that way, and he did under our legal system, then surely others have a right to be glad that he is out of the picture and will not be continuing to poison the soup for the next 40 years. But just quoting his outrageous statements is getting people fired from jobs. There is video of him advocating public executions and stating that children should be taken to see them. And there seems to be an expectation that we’re supposed to pretend that things like that were never said.
I’m sorry he was murdered; I would have much rather he had fallen to a disease or an auto accident. I worry that one if the great young hopes in the Democratic Party might now be assassinated in retaliation (highly likely, given that right wing extremists are responsible for 75% of politically motivated murders committed in this country over the last 10 years).
But to have the state demanding either grief or silence has echoes of North Korea. When Kim Jong Il died, there were people who were sent to labor/death camps because they were accused of crying tears that were not sincere. I don’t expect quite that, but I don’t feel any certainty like I once might have.
I never expected to hear what I’m hearing from a vice president (and one who is likely to become president soon, at that, given Trump’s failing health).
It’s unnerving to not be able to predict what is coming next; all we know is that it’s going to be bad.
"I’m sorry he was murdered; I would have much rather he had fallen to a disease or an auto accident." Wow aren't you one of the good ones?! Did you read the article? Helen was literally writing about why it is wrong to be fired for saying abhorrent things, as long as it doesn't interfere with the actual requirements of the job or cause reputational damage to the company that may affect its business. Do you think that perhaps you a missing the point here. Rather than assuming the future is bad, be part of the solution by having good faith arguments and convincing people with reasoned debate. Wishing someone dead who disagreed with you, is becoming part of the problem, creating a permission culture of death as a a solution to disagreement.
I did not wish him dead. The point is: I don’t mourn his passing. He should not have been murdered; no one should be murdered. You have misread what I wrote. My point is that we now have a government threatening the livelihood and well-being of those who point out what a flawed and unsavory character he was. I feel a responsibility to exercise my free speech rights especially when I find them being challenged.
As for being “one of the good ones”: I made no claim to virtue, but if you want to pass a negative judgment on me, go ahead.
Fair enough, if I mistook the meaning of your comment, then my apologies. It was just a strange way of putting it. It sounded to me like you were saying its good that he is dead, but it's only a shame that he was assassinated, instead of dying in a car accident. But full apologies if I got that wrong.
There’s a lot here, and it’s obvious you’re very sincere in your beliefs. However, I’d encourage to go watch the full videos those clips of Charlie Kirk were taken from, and see what he was actually saying.
As an example, if I were to say “Some people believe that women are inferior to men, but I don’t think that’s true.” it would be technically correct (but still very deceptive) to quote me as saying “women are inferior to men”, even though that’s the opposite of what I was trying to say. You could even show a video clip of me uttering the words “women are inferior to men” and many people might be convinced that that was my view.
You may likely find that you still disagree with some of Kirk’s views. I disagree with some of Kirk’s views. But you will find that he did not, in any meaningful sense, express the views you’ve stated, although I’ve watched some of the same deceptively edited videos that you obviously have that try to make it appear that he advocated for these things.
I traced the oldest case of documented cancel culture to Cain and Abel, coinciding with the world's first belly buttons. Sad to say, this means cancel culture and belly buttons are correlated at least.
Is it possible that liberalism has been used to cloak, hide and conceal other nefarious isms?
I am not sure if this is a criticism of Helen or just a general statement, but if is a criticism of Helen- it is a remarkably strange one. She has spent goodness knows how many hours of her life criticising the censuriousness of the left. She even wrote a book about it.
More general, you are correct and she has been. Took it down.
Fair play. She is getting a lot of incredibly unwarranted criticism at the minute. I probably responded in a slightly hair trigger manner. Apologies.