I'm with Jake, I hate Illinois nazis. Great piece as always. I trend more liberal as I get older but I also need alternative perspectives to make sure what's really true as opposed to hype. My go-to source for alternative takes, Fox News (who are MSM despite protestations to the contrary), has been hijacked by headline writers with a severe lack of substance behind the bold type. On the flip side I've given up MSNBC for the same reasons. But journalism has always been slanted to one view or another, and free speech is the cure as it has always been. To my children and anyone else who will listen, I say read always, and read broadly. It breeds curiosity, and curiosity is good for humanity
I’ve been reading The Atlantic since 1964 (as a teenager I worked in a public library and had access to what seemed like EVERYTHING), subscribed in college and read it regularly through the 70s. I’ve read it less over the years but still pick it up occasionally. I too am concerned by the level of agitprop but still pick it up hoping the quality of the wring outweighs the ideology. It’s like Dr. Johnson’s definition of a second marriage.
Of more concern were the number of writers who immediately left, or polled their readers to see if they should leave, before Singal’s piece was published. How come none of these writers asked the questions that Singal asked? Have we reached the point where the fear of being associated, even peripherally, with a banned thought makes critical thinking impossible? THAT is the really scary part, that fear of the mob leads to self censorship.
When it comes to the First Amendment, I am an Originalist: "Congress shall make NO law (my emphasis, not Madison's...). This is unambiguous. It may also explain why writer-controlled platforms like Substack are thriving at the expense of incumbents (which, BTW, are also publishing more self-help fluff with lame headlines like "Five things you need to know...."). Mr. Easterbrook is correct in asserting that incumbents like WashPost game the Google search engine with terms like "Nazis" to move up the rankings and, in this case, kneecap a scrappy competitor. (This, while billionaire owners layoff Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists.) There is something else at work here: self-censorship. Responsible writers, those who seek to inform, must pick and choose what to include and what to leave out. The goal is fairness. Objectivity exists only in journalism schools. Everybody has an opinion, and you're entitled to hear it. All Power to Substack!
Free speech emerged in ancient Athens as a vital component of that city’s democracy. The Assembly of citizens held ultimate authority in the city. All citizens (the “demos”) had the right to address the democratic Assembly, and all citizens had the right to be treated equally under the laws (called “isonomia” in ancient Greek).
These three concepts of Athenian citizenship (free speech, democratic sovereignty, and equality under the law) are bedrock concepts of much of today’s political world. It’s hard to imagine removing free speech from that triad.
Don’t get me wrong - there are plenty of things about ancient Athens we probably don’t want to emulate, but free speech appears to me to be a vital component to promoting and maintaining democracy and civic equality.
As always, terrific post Gregg--thank you. And the links you've provided are fascinating (and troubling) reads as well. Sadly, I've noticed the quality of the writing at "The Atlantic" appears to being deteriorating to some degree of late. Oh, wait, nevermind...I meant to say that "All Predictions Wrong" is now in crisis. ;)
Gregg (tastefully named of course), I’ve been reading your work since the early 2000’s on Page 2 and enjoy your work. This article particularly hit me because The Atlantic was my go to for extremely well researched and data driven articles. Conor Freidersdorf still seems to keep the flame burning on that end (had the opportunity to meet him and be quoted in a 2016 article about my unknowingly doomed business in a political context, so that’s my name drop). It’s disappointing to see what’s happening. Not just there, but Slate, Vice, New Yorker, and other such not quite MSM publications. I find myself just reading the comment sections on news articles and get more intellectual and entertainment value out of that. Anyway, keep writing great stuff and know that every outdoor game I look at the outfits and think “cold coach=victory”.
One of the embarrassing things of being an academic is sometimes things don't fit. I've discussed Substack's business model, and students don't generally get it. What other platform allows anyone to post content, either for free for money? Yup, I have to use OnlyFans to explain the business model, and they won't believe me when I say I haven't been there myself! 🤦♂️
Lemme add: I think there is an opportunity on Substack (and perhaps other sites I've never visited) for offering editors, publicists, etc. In short, to improve content, and to help build an audience. But I think this is where The Atlantic and other gatekeepers are whiffing. Why not have an editor who scans Substack (or perhaps other sites I've never visited), looking for those with good content, and license it for their audience? Or offer them space within the Gatekeeper for their content?
Don't be surprised if some well-known academics (I'm a minor leaguer) use Substack (or perhaps other sites I've never visited)
I also think writers who build an audience on Substack can do the same thing.
Section 230 was written in large part in response to competing judicial decisions about Compuserve and Prodigy which held that one was a publisher and the other was not in relation to how they moderated their bulletin board systems. So far no one has found a better answer.
This is a fun explainer on Section 230 in practice.
In regards to people freaking out over some fascist and Nazi content at Substack I think a lot of it is from those who’ve seen lightly moderated forums get overrun with trolls, griefers, and flamers of the hard right persuasion. The fascists see a bit more likely to engage in brigading than the lefties. (BlueSky has a problem with the hard left, but blocking still works there.) The only newsletter there that I read that’s moved is “Today in Tabs “ and Rusty is both very lefty, and has experience with a forum getting overrun. Popehat seems to be considering it, but hasn’t pulled the trigger yet.
curious how you specifically define the "hard left" which you compare quite a bit with the "extreme right"
The Extreme right is easy to see. They hold power. They are led by an insurrectionist who said there were good people on both sides at a nazi rally. They have senators, congresspeople and a whole gaggle of other people in power.
The hard left though....who are they? Does this include Biden? Who has always been pretty center of the road, even to the right in the democratic party. Does it include the democratic party? who will throw a rainbow on things and put pro nouns in their bios but are generally pretty center as well.
Their economic policies are not exactly "hard left".
To me the hard left should be universal health care, higher min wage, national chid care, stronger unions ...etc etc etc...
Except now these things are being throw under the bus as being affiliated with faux "hard left"
You say the "hard left" wants to censor speech....while i think that is just the democratic party and their people doing what those in power do. Perhaps the "hard center" is more appropriate to refer to their efforts.
Yes there are more examples of this in universities, academia etc...which i do not agree with...however these stories are getting way more attention than what the "hard left" really should be, and is.
And i dont think it is hard to figure out why the "hard left" is being tarnished by the actions of moderate dems and crazy academics...
Takes the pressure off the things noted above that really matter, could really improve peoples lives, and could adversely impact the donors to the DNC and GOP...who are often the same people.
Great piece, and I agree on the concept of absolutism in free speech. I'm sure we all have the occasional thought along the lines of "okay, sure, but THAT shouldn't be protected speech." But I always return to the question of, "Fine, if you are okay with banning that speech, are you okay with your political opponents getting to ban speech THEY don't like?"
On the Substack controversy, I did hear from one writer who was considering leaving Substack, not because Substack protected Nazis, but because Substack didn't protect other disfavored writers. He felt that Substack's public position supported free speech was tarnished by some examples where Substack did not. I don't have a dog in this hunt and don't know all the facts, but Substack does have to tread carefully lest its (very good and useful) platform develop an unfavorable reputation.
And that touches on the Communications Decency Act's Section 230. There's some real tension with how online communities are moderated, free speech, and libel law. I think that section 230 got it right, largely on the "more free speech is better" premise.
agree about section 230 which was written 10 years before the first iPHone. laws that still work in conditions that were not anticipated are fairly rare
The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V.
Thank you for opening up to public reading; I am sharing this to my circle.
Is this free speech issue a case of “the fox and the hedgehog” - the clever fox knows many things, but the slow-moving hedgehog knows one big important thing?
fox = intellectual elites
hedgehog = the unwashed, unburdened by high-falutin’ education
One could read your frank admission and come to the conclusion that our elites have completely lost the plot.
This podcast debate also explains the issue with MSM like The Atlantic having more hit pieces. Because it’s now a subscription model, those companies are incentivized to only write/report/fabricate news that their subscribers want to read
I read that for example crying "Fire!" in a dark, crowded place like a cinema is not protected by the First Amendment, especially when the panic caused by that cry leads to people trampling others to death. So let's face is - (free) speech have be constrained. I'd go as far that even left or right wing zealots think that speech should not be constrained unnecessarily. The difference is in what they think is necessary...
I'm with Jake, I hate Illinois nazis. Great piece as always. I trend more liberal as I get older but I also need alternative perspectives to make sure what's really true as opposed to hype. My go-to source for alternative takes, Fox News (who are MSM despite protestations to the contrary), has been hijacked by headline writers with a severe lack of substance behind the bold type. On the flip side I've given up MSNBC for the same reasons. But journalism has always been slanted to one view or another, and free speech is the cure as it has always been. To my children and anyone else who will listen, I say read always, and read broadly. It breeds curiosity, and curiosity is good for humanity
may i quote you?
sure, I'm honored
I’ve been reading The Atlantic since 1964 (as a teenager I worked in a public library and had access to what seemed like EVERYTHING), subscribed in college and read it regularly through the 70s. I’ve read it less over the years but still pick it up occasionally. I too am concerned by the level of agitprop but still pick it up hoping the quality of the wring outweighs the ideology. It’s like Dr. Johnson’s definition of a second marriage.
Of more concern were the number of writers who immediately left, or polled their readers to see if they should leave, before Singal’s piece was published. How come none of these writers asked the questions that Singal asked? Have we reached the point where the fear of being associated, even peripherally, with a banned thought makes critical thinking impossible? THAT is the really scary part, that fear of the mob leads to self censorship.
When it comes to the First Amendment, I am an Originalist: "Congress shall make NO law (my emphasis, not Madison's...). This is unambiguous. It may also explain why writer-controlled platforms like Substack are thriving at the expense of incumbents (which, BTW, are also publishing more self-help fluff with lame headlines like "Five things you need to know...."). Mr. Easterbrook is correct in asserting that incumbents like WashPost game the Google search engine with terms like "Nazis" to move up the rankings and, in this case, kneecap a scrappy competitor. (This, while billionaire owners layoff Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists.) There is something else at work here: self-censorship. Responsible writers, those who seek to inform, must pick and choose what to include and what to leave out. The goal is fairness. Objectivity exists only in journalism schools. Everybody has an opinion, and you're entitled to hear it. All Power to Substack!
Free speech emerged in ancient Athens as a vital component of that city’s democracy. The Assembly of citizens held ultimate authority in the city. All citizens (the “demos”) had the right to address the democratic Assembly, and all citizens had the right to be treated equally under the laws (called “isonomia” in ancient Greek).
These three concepts of Athenian citizenship (free speech, democratic sovereignty, and equality under the law) are bedrock concepts of much of today’s political world. It’s hard to imagine removing free speech from that triad.
Don’t get me wrong - there are plenty of things about ancient Athens we probably don’t want to emulate, but free speech appears to me to be a vital component to promoting and maintaining democracy and civic equality.
Great piece! Any chance you can make it available to non subscribers? I would love to share it
As it happens I just took paywall off because of public interest. But urge your friends to subscribe!
Will do!
As always, terrific post Gregg--thank you. And the links you've provided are fascinating (and troubling) reads as well. Sadly, I've noticed the quality of the writing at "The Atlantic" appears to being deteriorating to some degree of late. Oh, wait, nevermind...I meant to say that "All Predictions Wrong" is now in crisis. ;)
Thanks!
Gregg (tastefully named of course), I’ve been reading your work since the early 2000’s on Page 2 and enjoy your work. This article particularly hit me because The Atlantic was my go to for extremely well researched and data driven articles. Conor Freidersdorf still seems to keep the flame burning on that end (had the opportunity to meet him and be quoted in a 2016 article about my unknowingly doomed business in a political context, so that’s my name drop). It’s disappointing to see what’s happening. Not just there, but Slate, Vice, New Yorker, and other such not quite MSM publications. I find myself just reading the comment sections on news articles and get more intellectual and entertainment value out of that. Anyway, keep writing great stuff and know that every outdoor game I look at the outfits and think “cold coach=victory”.
Thanks for the kind words
I just hope the Cardinals get a sweet play of the week during playoffs sometime again during my lifetime
With their extra picks they should be in the upswing of a talent cycle l
One of the embarrassing things of being an academic is sometimes things don't fit. I've discussed Substack's business model, and students don't generally get it. What other platform allows anyone to post content, either for free for money? Yup, I have to use OnlyFans to explain the business model, and they won't believe me when I say I haven't been there myself! 🤦♂️
Lemme add: I think there is an opportunity on Substack (and perhaps other sites I've never visited) for offering editors, publicists, etc. In short, to improve content, and to help build an audience. But I think this is where The Atlantic and other gatekeepers are whiffing. Why not have an editor who scans Substack (or perhaps other sites I've never visited), looking for those with good content, and license it for their audience? Or offer them space within the Gatekeeper for their content?
Don't be surprised if some well-known academics (I'm a minor leaguer) use Substack (or perhaps other sites I've never visited)
I also think writers who build an audience on Substack can do the same thing.
Section 230 was written in large part in response to competing judicial decisions about Compuserve and Prodigy which held that one was a publisher and the other was not in relation to how they moderated their bulletin board systems. So far no one has found a better answer.
This is a fun explainer on Section 230 in practice.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
In regards to people freaking out over some fascist and Nazi content at Substack I think a lot of it is from those who’ve seen lightly moderated forums get overrun with trolls, griefers, and flamers of the hard right persuasion. The fascists see a bit more likely to engage in brigading than the lefties. (BlueSky has a problem with the hard left, but blocking still works there.) The only newsletter there that I read that’s moved is “Today in Tabs “ and Rusty is both very lefty, and has experience with a forum getting overrun. Popehat seems to be considering it, but hasn’t pulled the trigger yet.
Hey Gregg,
curious how you specifically define the "hard left" which you compare quite a bit with the "extreme right"
The Extreme right is easy to see. They hold power. They are led by an insurrectionist who said there were good people on both sides at a nazi rally. They have senators, congresspeople and a whole gaggle of other people in power.
The hard left though....who are they? Does this include Biden? Who has always been pretty center of the road, even to the right in the democratic party. Does it include the democratic party? who will throw a rainbow on things and put pro nouns in their bios but are generally pretty center as well.
Their economic policies are not exactly "hard left".
To me the hard left should be universal health care, higher min wage, national chid care, stronger unions ...etc etc etc...
Except now these things are being throw under the bus as being affiliated with faux "hard left"
You say the "hard left" wants to censor speech....while i think that is just the democratic party and their people doing what those in power do. Perhaps the "hard center" is more appropriate to refer to their efforts.
Yes there are more examples of this in universities, academia etc...which i do not agree with...however these stories are getting way more attention than what the "hard left" really should be, and is.
And i dont think it is hard to figure out why the "hard left" is being tarnished by the actions of moderate dems and crazy academics...
Takes the pressure off the things noted above that really matter, could really improve peoples lives, and could adversely impact the donors to the DNC and GOP...who are often the same people.
Great piece, and I agree on the concept of absolutism in free speech. I'm sure we all have the occasional thought along the lines of "okay, sure, but THAT shouldn't be protected speech." But I always return to the question of, "Fine, if you are okay with banning that speech, are you okay with your political opponents getting to ban speech THEY don't like?"
On the Substack controversy, I did hear from one writer who was considering leaving Substack, not because Substack protected Nazis, but because Substack didn't protect other disfavored writers. He felt that Substack's public position supported free speech was tarnished by some examples where Substack did not. I don't have a dog in this hunt and don't know all the facts, but Substack does have to tread carefully lest its (very good and useful) platform develop an unfavorable reputation.
And that touches on the Communications Decency Act's Section 230. There's some real tension with how online communities are moderated, free speech, and libel law. I think that section 230 got it right, largely on the "more free speech is better" premise.
Love your work, Gregg!
agree about section 230 which was written 10 years before the first iPHone. laws that still work in conditions that were not anticipated are fairly rare
The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V.
If only this was properly understood by many.
Thank you for opening up to public reading; I am sharing this to my circle.
Is this free speech issue a case of “the fox and the hedgehog” - the clever fox knows many things, but the slow-moving hedgehog knows one big important thing?
fox = intellectual elites
hedgehog = the unwashed, unburdened by high-falutin’ education
One could read your frank admission and come to the conclusion that our elites have completely lost the plot.
Urge your friends to subscribe to!
Well thought out and balanced
This podcast debate also explains the issue with MSM like The Atlantic having more hit pieces. Because it’s now a subscription model, those companies are incentivized to only write/report/fabricate news that their subscribers want to read
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-munk-debates-podcast/id1486184902?i=1000615003189
I read that for example crying "Fire!" in a dark, crowded place like a cinema is not protected by the First Amendment, especially when the panic caused by that cry leads to people trampling others to death. So let's face is - (free) speech have be constrained. I'd go as far that even left or right wing zealots think that speech should not be constrained unnecessarily. The difference is in what they think is necessary...