In your future writing on Hatecraft, I hope you will consider exploring the role of social consequences to punish people who express overt, hateful, eliminationist bigotry and the endorsement of violence. These were and in many ways still are violations of our 'universal moral TABOOS', and I believe this hate must be shunned out of polite society, as we did to marginalize and defeat the KKK. If we don't, it will normalize and spiral into further violence and anarchy.
I believe we can restore these taboos in a principled way that doesn't violate the 1A and can mitigate the excesses of "cancel culture". And I think that "free speech culture" absolutists like FIRE and Greg L introduce a tremendous risk to society by arguing that everybody should openly express their most hateful views (e.g. admit that they're a Nazi or want politicians assassinated) but that any effort to get them fired and ostracized for that speech would be considered "cancel culture". Unfortunately, Greg refuses to engage with this critique.
I have no doubt you'll consider this objectively. :)
FWIW, I'm a free speech absolutist too. Let everyone say whatever they want. But of course that doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't face any non-legal consequences, and I think we do a disservice to call any such consequences "cancel culture" and "censorship".
Unfortunately, today we have too much hate and endorsement of violence going unpunished and becoming normalized, while folks still try to "cancel" for minor/manufactured offenses. We need a principled way to assess when consequences are warranted, or things are going to get really ugly and fast.
I'll add here my 4 principles for restoring these moral taboos:
1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence.
2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence).
3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion.
4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this (no rush)!
In your future writing on Hatecraft, I hope you will consider exploring the role of social consequences to punish people who express overt, hateful, eliminationist bigotry and the endorsement of violence. These were and in many ways still are violations of our 'universal moral TABOOS', and I believe this hate must be shunned out of polite society, as we did to marginalize and defeat the KKK. If we don't, it will normalize and spiral into further violence and anarchy.
I believe we can restore these taboos in a principled way that doesn't violate the 1A and can mitigate the excesses of "cancel culture". And I think that "free speech culture" absolutists like FIRE and Greg L introduce a tremendous risk to society by arguing that everybody should openly express their most hateful views (e.g. admit that they're a Nazi or want politicians assassinated) but that any effort to get them fired and ostracized for that speech would be considered "cancel culture". Unfortunately, Greg refuses to engage with this critique.
Anyway, I suspect you will have some really thoughtful and principled viewpoints on this subject. https://elevin11.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-myth-of-more-speech
Very interesting angle. I'm easily convinced I am a free speech absolutist. But I'll go into your piece with a blank slate. Thanks!
I have no doubt you'll consider this objectively. :)
FWIW, I'm a free speech absolutist too. Let everyone say whatever they want. But of course that doesn't mean they can't/shouldn't face any non-legal consequences, and I think we do a disservice to call any such consequences "cancel culture" and "censorship".
Unfortunately, today we have too much hate and endorsement of violence going unpunished and becoming normalized, while folks still try to "cancel" for minor/manufactured offenses. We need a principled way to assess when consequences are warranted, or things are going to get really ugly and fast.
I'll add here my 4 principles for restoring these moral taboos:
1. The Red Line: Limit actionable taboos to overt bigotry, dehumanization, and the endorsement of violence.
2. The Consensus Test: Distinguish between subjective offense (which is partisan and open to individual interpretation) and a Shared Moral Violation (which reflects a broad, trans-tribal consensus and warrants consequence).
3. The Private Mechanism: Enforce standards through civil society (employers, associations), never government coercion.
4. The Open Door: The goal of consequence must be correction, not permanent destruction; always offer a path to redemption.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this (no rush)!
Love the thought effort you've put into this! #2 answered my concern coming out of #1. I'll be eager to see what you've presented.