Why do people we abhor have the right to say abhorrent things? Because we believe in the rule of law across the board. Another example offered by Alan Charles Kors: "We do not provide jury trials only for people we find decent."
Instead of "Believe the Woman" or "Believe the Man," how about Believe in Due Process? This video by Matt Orfalea illustrates why we need to be highly suspicious whenever the corporate media conducts its own hysterical "trials" of celebrities.
Commenting on this video, Matt Taibbi adds:
Most people accused of crimes aren’t famous ballplayers, but small-timers whose shoplifting or assault mugshots become ugly headlines above little online arrest reports that remain on the Internet forever, for potential future employers and friends alike to see. What should media do, about people who are accused but not yet convicted? Probably at minimum, cover exonerations with as much vigor as opening charges. Unfortunately, dirty laundry will always sell better.
I just returned from the 3-day FIRE Faculty Network Conference in DC.
I was surrounded by brave educators, many of whom have repeatedly faced adversity from their schools for the crime of being excellent teachers. I had the opportunity visit with three women professors who teach in the area of biological sciences (at three different universities). Each one of them was present because biology is so often seen as a threat to ignorant students, professors and administrators.
I also had the opportunity to meet Erika Lopez Prater, who was fired by Hamline University for doing an excellent job of teaching Islamic Religious History--her specific sin was displaying for the class the image of a much-revered historic 14th Century painting of Muhammed, painted by a Muslim for a Muslim audience. She did this after giving her class warning, so that anyone who might be offended could be excused from class. The administrator who fired her called her actions: "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic”
I also had the opportunity to meet Professor of Religion, Mark Bergson, who argued, at considerable risk to his job, that Hamlin was making a horrific mistake by firing Lopez Prater.
Speakers at the conference included Greg Lukianoff and Steven Pinker. We all know that this problem--that many people who formerly opposed censorship and cancel culture are now in favor of these things--is not going away any time soon.
FIRE weighs in on the horrific struggle involving Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the same excellent suggestion that it offers regarding ever other conflict: The more feee speech, the better.
The article is titled: "As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalates, so must our commitment to free speech: Intense political disagreements demonstrate the necessity of the First Amendment." Excerpt:
Let every participant in the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict show their cards, even those with the most extreme views. And let others marshal arguments and evidence to refute or discredit those views. Let it all happen out in the open.
At the end of the day, we’re not better off knowing less about what our fellow Americans actually think. As FIRE co-founder Harvey Silverglate has said, “I want to know who the Nazi in the room is so I know not to turn my back to them.”
In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket soldiers’ funerals with signs bearing messages like “Fags Doom Nations” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” It’s hard to find a case involving speech that draws less public sympathy. But as the Court said in an 8-1 decision uniting justices across the ideological spectrum:
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.Free speech comes at a price. But it’s nothing compared to the price we will pay if we abandon it.
From Public, an introduction to the Westminster Declaration, an effort focused on "formal censorship by governments of online speech, not censorship at the level of the workplace or media." Several excerpts from this article:
A group of 138 scholars, public intellectuals, and journalists from across the political spectrum have issued a strong call warning the public of the Censorship Industrial Complex and urging governments to dismantle it in the name of the “first liberty,” freedom of speech. It’s called The Westminster Declaration ...The signatory list includes scholars like Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and John McWhorter, actors like Tim Robbins and John Cleese, journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, and Lee Fang, and scientists like Jay Bhattacharya. It includes prominent free speech advocates like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Nadine Strossen, Greg Lukianoff, and many more.
You may notice that the signatory list features thinkers from the Left, like Slavoj Žižek, as well as thinkers from the Right, like Jordan Peterson. People with very different political views have signed the declaration, and you may also notice that individuals with significant disagreements have signed it. That is precisely the point. It is only through free speech that robust political, ethical, and scientific debates can take place.
“Across the globe,” the Declaration reads, “government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. …the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labelling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance.”
Those who claim they are simply “fighting misinformation” are, in truth, attempting to control the minds of the public. This is exceedingly dangerous since, ”time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labeling certain political or scientific positions as 'misinformation' or 'malinformation,' our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defense against disinformation.”
While we do not intend to add any additional signatories to the Declaration, given the significant amount of time already invested, we welcome endorsements in the form of articles and social media posts by those who agree with it. We are happy to note that The New York Post, The Telegraph of London, The Times of London, Die Welt, France-Soir, La Veritá, and other newspapers have written about or will soon publish articles about the Declaration.
The opening passages to the Westminster Declaration:
We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.
This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.
Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.
Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’