Author of the piece here. Just want to clarify: I'm NOT defending Tate's character or anything related to him. I'm solely arguing for all our right to free speech whether legally or culturally.
I've been reading a lotately about just how critical it is to have an "all allowed" right to free speech in a democracy, even moreso than under authoritarian systems. How could that be one might rightly ask? Our answer can be found in nearly every state that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as many fledgling nations in Africa, the Middle East, India in the 1950s...
The first thing most countries did when they had elections was to vote the majority ethnic group into power, who then took over the state media. That so many of these states are virtually mono-ethnic tells you what happened next (assuming you weren't around during the 1990s ethnic cleansing campaigns).
In Iraq, as soon as they were granted elections the majority ethnic and religious group took command of every important post or ministry, setting off an immediate civil war. We could go on, but the key here is that in all cases, those in power controlled radio, TV, news outlets and what was allowed to be said and taught. But it wasn't just the State, it was the voice of the actual majority. The state was often just amplifying the strongest opinions of their group.
The protection to say what you believe and to practice where you put your faith; it's more than the cornerstone of democracy, it's the entire foundation. A lot of other rights can be bent or suppressed for a time, but this is the one that must remain untouched.
I think the reason that cancellations and “safe space” concerns spiked up so rapidly is that an entire generation (maybe two?) of young people grew up in dumbed-down schools that scaled back or removed critical thinking from their curriculum. Their parents freaked out at how much more unsafe the world felt (or really had become, depending on too many factors to list here). And the overall effect of all of that was an impulse to protect kids, rather than to give them tools to help them learn to *protect themselves* from upsetting speech and thought in the public sphere.
I’m not saying there isn’t real danger in the world — there *is*, and I’ve lived through some of it — but people have overreacted so much to the danger that instead of learning how to respond to it they’ve run away from it. That has created a vacuum for others to enter in and spew some of the most offensive filth and to encourage real violence, without a strong social compact to put any checks on their words or actions. We’ve now reached a point where the most vulnerable have no social supports, the bullies are getting way too much unfiltered air time and the rest of us are too strung out on fear to chart a societal course correction back towards respect and a shared sense of humanity.
The pendulum swings both ways, never stopping. I can only hope that enough people will help it swing back to a society that’s more respectful and more reasonable before too long.
Good article Michael. I feel one only has the right to Free Speech, if you express yourself under your proper name, and with some indication of where you live. If you are not prepared to declare who you are, then I believe you have surrendered your right to Free Speech. Had this requirement been built into the Internet from the start, I don't believe the likes of Andrew Tate would ever have established a following. Now that he has such a following, of course he is courageous enough to say anything, because he has a large enough fan base. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Hey Bruce! Yeah I hear you. On the flip side anonymity is often a form of free speech protection itself. People can say things without fear of government interference or being fired, etc. Thanks for the read! Check out my stack; you might like it.
Agreed, but a whistleblower wouldn't use the public fora of the Internet to blow the whistle. They would do it first within the processes available within the body against whom they are blowing the whistle. Should that fail, (or should that body not have an anonymous mechanism) then they can blow the whistle through the law enforcement agencies, that do have mechanisms for anonymity. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Agree. Anonymity has def allowed online hate to flourish. I myself use only initials but that's because I don't want hate knocking on my door. I guess it's a viscous cycle.
It’s a shame this piece has to engage in so much pre-emptive and post-hoc grovelling. The point is sufficiently made by the Orwell quote alone, which in fact could be strengthened to say free speech is intrinsically and entirely the right to express offensive views. Anything less is no right at all.
It's also worth remembering that back in the "dark ages" (the mid-1800s through the early 1900s) it was very common to see pseudonyms used for letters to the editor and opinion pieces. VERY common. And many of those were critical or scathing about just about any topic, from the morals or lack thereof of the town just down the road to the shortcomings of leaders of various stripes. What HAS changed is the internet removed editorial oversight. That's the real story in my view, not anonymous posting.
Free speech, and the attendant right to be offended by or ignore said speech, is indeed the cornerstone of democracy. Not just something that can be vilified if you disagree or defended beyond all reason if you agree.
Oh, I agree. But back then the paper bore a certain share of responsibility for what appeared (and I think in more than a few cases the editor was the one who did the writing). Now the service companies can hide behind their legal shields (and we're in a far more litigious society).
Yep, tate should be free to spew his bile and I am free to not listen to it. He should NEVER have been let out of Romania, though! trump got the tate's brought back to the US to please his Kayfabe crew. A lot of investigative police work went into the brothers being arrested and charged in Europe and then trumpy comes along and nearly blows it.
I agree! Andrew Tate should be allowed to post here because free speech! And i can freely send him my past articles making fun of him! I would have been harsher if I'd realized there was a chance he might see them 😁
Author of the piece here. Just want to clarify: I'm NOT defending Tate's character or anything related to him. I'm solely arguing for all our right to free speech whether legally or culturally.
Understandable. In fact, the censorship could arguably be the reason why people were drawn to him
I've been reading a lotately about just how critical it is to have an "all allowed" right to free speech in a democracy, even moreso than under authoritarian systems. How could that be one might rightly ask? Our answer can be found in nearly every state that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as many fledgling nations in Africa, the Middle East, India in the 1950s...
The first thing most countries did when they had elections was to vote the majority ethnic group into power, who then took over the state media. That so many of these states are virtually mono-ethnic tells you what happened next (assuming you weren't around during the 1990s ethnic cleansing campaigns).
In Iraq, as soon as they were granted elections the majority ethnic and religious group took command of every important post or ministry, setting off an immediate civil war. We could go on, but the key here is that in all cases, those in power controlled radio, TV, news outlets and what was allowed to be said and taught. But it wasn't just the State, it was the voice of the actual majority. The state was often just amplifying the strongest opinions of their group.
The protection to say what you believe and to practice where you put your faith; it's more than the cornerstone of democracy, it's the entire foundation. A lot of other rights can be bent or suppressed for a time, but this is the one that must remain untouched.
Agreed. The protected right to free speech cannot/should not be taken away. The cost of losing free speech is too great.
Speak up
Speak loud
Speak proud
Yeah 👍
Agree my man 👌👌👌. Thanks for reading the piece. Check my stack out. You might like it.
Even so, it also gives us the power to listen to what tate says and to show how absolutely batshit toxic he is.
Sixty-something woman here.
I think the reason that cancellations and “safe space” concerns spiked up so rapidly is that an entire generation (maybe two?) of young people grew up in dumbed-down schools that scaled back or removed critical thinking from their curriculum. Their parents freaked out at how much more unsafe the world felt (or really had become, depending on too many factors to list here). And the overall effect of all of that was an impulse to protect kids, rather than to give them tools to help them learn to *protect themselves* from upsetting speech and thought in the public sphere.
I’m not saying there isn’t real danger in the world — there *is*, and I’ve lived through some of it — but people have overreacted so much to the danger that instead of learning how to respond to it they’ve run away from it. That has created a vacuum for others to enter in and spew some of the most offensive filth and to encourage real violence, without a strong social compact to put any checks on their words or actions. We’ve now reached a point where the most vulnerable have no social supports, the bullies are getting way too much unfiltered air time and the rest of us are too strung out on fear to chart a societal course correction back towards respect and a shared sense of humanity.
The pendulum swings both ways, never stopping. I can only hope that enough people will help it swing back to a society that’s more respectful and more reasonable before too long.
Beautifully said. Agree. Check out my Substack: You'll like it.
Good article Michael. I feel one only has the right to Free Speech, if you express yourself under your proper name, and with some indication of where you live. If you are not prepared to declare who you are, then I believe you have surrendered your right to Free Speech. Had this requirement been built into the Internet from the start, I don't believe the likes of Andrew Tate would ever have established a following. Now that he has such a following, of course he is courageous enough to say anything, because he has a large enough fan base. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Hey Bruce! Yeah I hear you. On the flip side anonymity is often a form of free speech protection itself. People can say things without fear of government interference or being fired, etc. Thanks for the read! Check out my stack; you might like it.
Agreed, but a whistleblower wouldn't use the public fora of the Internet to blow the whistle. They would do it first within the processes available within the body against whom they are blowing the whistle. Should that fail, (or should that body not have an anonymous mechanism) then they can blow the whistle through the law enforcement agencies, that do have mechanisms for anonymity. Bruce Danckwerts, CHOMA, Zambia
Agree. Anonymity has def allowed online hate to flourish. I myself use only initials but that's because I don't want hate knocking on my door. I guess it's a viscous cycle.
I see both sides here. It's tricky.
It’s a shame this piece has to engage in so much pre-emptive and post-hoc grovelling. The point is sufficiently made by the Orwell quote alone, which in fact could be strengthened to say free speech is intrinsically and entirely the right to express offensive views. Anything less is no right at all.
Thanks the read, groveling aside :)
Sorry my friend. 😁
It's also worth remembering that back in the "dark ages" (the mid-1800s through the early 1900s) it was very common to see pseudonyms used for letters to the editor and opinion pieces. VERY common. And many of those were critical or scathing about just about any topic, from the morals or lack thereof of the town just down the road to the shortcomings of leaders of various stripes. What HAS changed is the internet removed editorial oversight. That's the real story in my view, not anonymous posting.
Free speech, and the attendant right to be offended by or ignore said speech, is indeed the cornerstone of democracy. Not just something that can be vilified if you disagree or defended beyond all reason if you agree.
Agree: Anonymity has an important role even though it can be retrograde and a hiding place for trolls too.
Oh, I agree. But back then the paper bore a certain share of responsibility for what appeared (and I think in more than a few cases the editor was the one who did the writing). Now the service companies can hide behind their legal shields (and we're in a far more litigious society).
Yep, tate should be free to spew his bile and I am free to not listen to it. He should NEVER have been let out of Romania, though! trump got the tate's brought back to the US to please his Kayfabe crew. A lot of investigative police work went into the brothers being arrested and charged in Europe and then trumpy comes along and nearly blows it.
Agree. He is clearly a cretan.
I agree! Andrew Tate should be allowed to post here because free speech! And i can freely send him my past articles making fun of him! I would have been harsher if I'd realized there was a chance he might see them 😁