NPR Incoherently Lashes Out at “Free Speech”

Matt Taibbi's latest article, with which I completely agree: "NPR Trashes Free Speech. A Brief Response: In an irony only public radio could miss, "On the Media" hosts an hour on the perils of "free speech absolutism" without interviewing a defender of free speech." An excerpt:

The guests for NPR’s just-released On The Media episode about the dangers of free speech included Andrew Marantz, author of an article called, “Free Speech is Killing Us”; P.E. Moskowitz, author of “The Case Against Free Speech”; Susan Benesch, director of the “Dangerous Speech Project”; and Berkeley professor John Powell, whose contribution was to rip John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech in On Liberty as “wrong.”

That’s about right for NPR, which for years now has regularly congratulated itself for being a beacon of diversity while expunging every conceivable alternative point of view.

I always liked Brooke Gladstone, but this episode of On The Media was shockingly dishonest. The show was a compendium of every neo-authoritarian argument for speech control one finds on Twitter, beginning with the blanket labeling of censorship critics as “speech absolutists” (most are not) and continuing with shameless revisions of the history of episodes like the ACLU’s mid-seventies defense of Nazi marchers at Skokie, Illinois.

The essence of arguments made by all of NPR’s guests is that the modern conception of speech rights is based upon John Stuart Mill’s outdated conception of harm, which they summarized as saying, “My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.”

Because, they say, we now know that people can be harmed by something other than physical violence, Mill (whose thoughts NPR overlaid with harpsichord music, so we could be reminded how antiquated they are) was wrong, and we have to recalibrate our understanding of speech rights accordingly.

This was already an absurd and bizarre take, but what came next was worse. I was stunned by Marantz and Powell’s take on Brandenburg v. Ohio, our current legal standard for speech, which prevents the government from intervening except in cases of incitement to “imminent lawless action”:

"MARANTZ: Neo-Nazi rhetoric about gassing Jews, that might inflict psychological harm on a Holocaust survivor, but as long as there’s no immediate incitement to physical violence, the government considers that protected… The village of Skokie tried to stop the Nazis from marching, but the ACLU took the case to the Supreme Court, and the court upheld the Nazis’ right to march.

POWELL: The speech absolutists try to say, “You can’t regulate speech…” Why? “Well, because it would harm the speaker. It would somehow truncate their expression and their self-determination.” And you say, okay, what’s the harm? “Well, the harm is, a psychological harm.” Wait a minute, I thought you said psychological harms did not count?"

This is not remotely accurate as a description of what happened in Skokie. People like eventual ACLU chief Ira Glasser and lawyer David Goldberger had spent much of the sixties fighting the civil rights movement. The entire justification of these activists and lawyers — Jewish activists and lawyers, incidentally, who despised what neo-Nazi plaintiff Frank Collin stood for — was based not upon a vague notion of preventing “psychological harm,” but on a desire to protect minority rights . . . .

.

If you are wondering whether Taibbi is accurately portraying this NPR discussion, I invite you to listen to it here. NPR's conversation is stunningly muddled and incoherent. None of the guests show any meaningful familiarity with the work of John Stuart Mill. None of the participants demonstrate a working understanding of the First Amendment or the case law interpreting it. The result is that most of the discussion is aimed at straw men. And fully in line with what NPR has done, it stirred in a discussion of the "implicit bias" test in this free speech discussion, the perfect cherry on top for NPR's increasingly woke audience. This is what passes for a meaningful discussion at NPR.

Continue ReadingNPR Incoherently Lashes Out at “Free Speech”

John McWhorter joins Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover on PBS to discuss “Critical Race Theory.”

John McWhorter joins Firing Line's Margaret Hoover on PBS to discuss "Critical Race Theory."

A few excerpts:

Margaret Hoover:

what are they rallying against? What are they teaching that is objectionable?

John McWhorter:

here's the here's the issue. And I wish all of them would be more specific there two things. One is practically lining all the kids up against the wall and teaching the white people, our oppressors, black people are oppressed, and that the white kids need to know it, and the black kids need to know it. And what however you present it, that is some strong stuff to be giving to eight year olds to teach that whiteness is potentially evil and that blackness means that you have to constantly be on guard against it.

Then the second thing is a basic idea that battling power differentials, and specifically racism, often is supposed to be not just one of many things, not just one of many things in the meal, but the center, the fulcrum of all intellectual, artistic and moral endeavor. That's what is being taught at many schools. It's not just whether or not you teach people that there was slavery, that there was redlining and that racism can be subtle. It's making all of these schools antiracist boot camps. That's the problem these days.

After last summer, there was this educational opportunity many of these people saw where you could start saying that you needed to do this within this racial reckoning. And if you don't do it, you're a racist. Now, if anybody had tried to pull that, say, 15 years ago, it wouldn't have work. But now we have Twitter, so if you go against them, you get called a racist in the public square. For nine out of 10 people, that's enough to make them follow along, because most of us are buying groceries and raising our kids, but the result of this has been truly dangerous.

Margaret Hoover:

So you just introduced a new term into this conversation, anti racism. And your next book is entitled, Woke Racism: How a New Religion has Betrayed Black America. Explain what is the relationship between anti racism and critical race theory?

John McWhorter:

Well, anti racism as a fashionable word these days, but what it means in practice, you know, who knows what its definition in the dictionary is, but what it means in practice is that if there is some kind of imbalance between white and black people, the reason is something called racism, either bigotry, or some raw deal that black people have been done as the result of it and probably a mixture of the two. And that therefore, what we're going to do is we're going to battle that racism. That's what anti racism means in our current context. And the problem with it is that, often, what we're seeing as, quote unquote, racist isn't. So the common idea that you get nowadays, black kids tend not to do as well on standardized tests. Well, instead of saying, "How do we get black kids to do better on them?" which is something that has happened in the past, the new idea is that you say, "Let's just get rid of the test, because the test must be racist." You don't have to specify how, but if the black kids don't do as well on it, the test is a racist practice. That's a real leap. That is a hyper-radical way of looking at things that I think most people presented with the mechanics of the argument would think of as rather cruel, frankly, to black kids. That's not the way to run a society., most of us would think. Some people might be able to make a case for it, but most of us wouldn't agree with that. But instead, we're being taught that if you're not an antiracist, you're bad. And we're gonna embarrass you on Twitter. And as a result, many people end up pretending to agree with ideas like this.

Margaret Hoover:

There are local school board meetings across the country, getting national attention with parents using the word indoctrination about anti racism curriculum. You say that you've been contacted by parents and teachers and principals from all over the country on a daily basis? What are people who reach out to you telling you

John McWhorter

Well, people who reach out to me are telling me is that they are extremely disappointed and are angry that this is suddenly happening in their school. And the regular theme is that they understand what racism is, but they don't want their kids being taught what to think as opposed to how to think. And then also, they're scared. They are so deeply afraid of being tarred as racists in public. And these people just they want their children to be taught not that there's no racism. They don't want their children to be taught Beaver Cleaver as America, but they don't want want their children to be going to antiracist academies. The idea that that represents progress that nobody should stand athwart is one of the most sclerotic ideas I had ever seen becoming mainstream in my entire existence.

Continue ReadingJohn McWhorter joins Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover on PBS to discuss “Critical Race Theory.”

Attorney with Stellar Career with NY Legal Services Dares to Have an Opinion that Counters the Woke Narrative.

Here’s an example a good-hearted intelligent attorney who has been cancelled by fringe left-wing ideologues. This type of problem started off as a few rain drops (e.g., the case of Steven Pinker), but now we’re in a torrential storm. There are so many other stories emerging too. Many people have personally communicated to me that they are afraid to express their opinions--they are afraid to like my FB posts, even though they agree with many of them.

This is the case of Maud Maron, a Legal Aid Attorney who has had a long and stellar career in NY, but how dare she express an opinion that counters the prevailing narrative! Off with her head! She has filed suit against her office. The allegations described in this article by FAIR are extremely disturbing. Here's an excerpt from FAIR's article:

As a committed public defender with an exemplary record for over two decades, Maud has represented poor and low-income New Yorkers of every skin color in criminal court. But when she wrote an op-ed disagreeing with Robin DiAngelo’s illiberal claim that all white people are racist, her employer and union publicly attacked her in racially-charged social media posts about her alleged “white superiority,” what she must think simply because she is, in their words, a “white practitioner,” and how she participates in “white supremacy” and “oppresses” others solely because of her skin color. By claiming they are “ashamed that she works at the Legal Aid Society” and emphatically stating, “Enough is enough,” they made it clear she was no longer welcome at her job.

Continue ReadingAttorney with Stellar Career with NY Legal Services Dares to Have an Opinion that Counters the Woke Narrative.

Ben Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

On September 17, 1787, as delegates left the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have?

"A Republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

I am stunned at the willingness of many on the political left to ignore the First Amendment out of convenience when it comes to their favorite issues. As I predicted several days ago, the ACLU has been silent. Many of us who used to fear government censorship are publicly warming up to that idea.  In recent days, Glenn Greenwald has commented repeatedly. For example:

Those who remember the recent past the federal government be able to declare and enforce its version of the "truth" re COVID.  Here's a few examples:

There is apparently something in the water that is causing Americans to become obtuse, unable to understand their own history, their own government and nuance. Many people who hear my opinions of these topics accuse me of liking it when malevolent and stupid people kill other people by spreading lies about COVID.  They think I like it when harmful false ideas are spread through social media. Many of them are proud Americans who wave flags and celebrate the Fourth of July, but they don't understand the function and power of the First Amendment and free speech (the latter of which is a broader issue). It's as though they don't understand that many truths are complex, making them unendingly imperfect and tentative. It's as though they don't understand that by allowing the marketplace of ideas to run its course, we will be in the best position to understand what is going on around us on every topic and every issue. It's as though they want to completely trust a government that excels in spewing out lies, year after year, administration after administration.

Is it too much to ask that Americans understand their own Constitution before willingly shredding parts of it?

Continue ReadingBen Franklin: It’s “a Republic, if you can keep it.”