I love the blog, but I have a nagging and very genuine question. Do you ever worry that you’re getting to be a little too much of a lefty nag who nags left? It seems that a lot of your posts lately have been about frustration with how people you agree with argue. I agree with you on all points, but I wonder where the line is between stuff that’s worth ignoring (some a-hole made a Tumblr) and stuff worth addressing (some thought leader at The Nation is wrong, and perhaps an a-hole). I’m just curious about your thoughts on this. Are you feeding trolls?
P.S. : I have sent links to a couple of your posts to lefties who were arguing badly… so you definitely fill a niche in my online diet. I am just curious about whether you feel a place or a duty in the political sphere now.
A data point. I’m on the right and read your blog. A few of my (right-wing) ask me why, and my answer is that, aside from the general virtue of reading people you disagree with, is that a lot of your posts read to me as exactly the sort of thing I would write if:
1. I were a much, much better writer, and
2. I wanted to attack social justice effectively by criticizing it signalling that I was an ally
I think this is a sort of inverse Poe’s law, wherein effective self-criticism is indistinguishable from effective concern trolling.
You should consider opening up comments again. Does WordPress let you “lock” comments after a certain number of days? Might be easier to moderate/keep up with spam if all post comments are locked after, say, 5 days.
Time elapsed between reading here that there is no serious discussion about curtailing speech in the West (‘On debating dead moral questions’) and finding out that the AP had removed copies of Andre Serrano’s “Piss Christ” from online publication in order to bring it into line with their newly stated( yet allegedly years-old) policy of “refrain(ing) from moving deliberately provocative images” : about 3 hours.
You get that the cartoons in question for published immensely now times because of the attacks, right? Like you can’t get away from them now. Which is good. But not indicative of censorship.
“You get that the cartoons in question for published immensely now times because of the attacks, right?”
Am I an idiot or was this some kind of Autocorrect disaster?
Notwithstanding your great ‘On debating dead moral questions’ post, I am a bit surprised by your reply to Miler, because you’d agree with Miler that free speech ability goes beyond government not suppressing people.
I suspect Fred’s position here is that the American controversy over which news sources are and aren’t censoring the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is largely insincere posturing.
In progressive circles, I’ve long been seeing this argument, perfectly exemplified in this xkcd strip, that Free Speech is purely an issue of the actions of governments. It strikes me as willful ignorance, a kind of convenient half truth. Chilling effects are a real thing, as the modern progressive Left well knows given that generating tailor-made, allegedly benign chilling effects is a widely-endorsed tactic to bring about a more just and compassionate world.
My point is that maybe it’s not as dead an issue as you make it out to be. People have been trying to censor that photograph for nearly 30 years.
I suspect that some on the left realize that there are many issues where it is politically infeasible to harness the coercive power of the state to achieve their ends, so they are now focused on harnessing the coercive power of corporations. I noticed that during the Brendan Eich affair. I was surprised to see hear some people on the left argue that a private corporation like Mozilla can do whatever it wants to its employees. For me, that was an eye-opener: “left” or “progressive” is not necessarily “liberal.”
“I suspect that some on the left realize that there are many issues where it is politically infeasible to harness the coercive power of the state to achieve their ends, so they are now focused on harnessing the coercive power of corporations”
Good point, but I think that shows why the attack on Charlie Hebdo won’t result in a meaningful debate on freedom of expression. What journalists write is curtailed by fear of being sued for defamation, or of losing access to sources, or of offending advertisers, an editor, or a group that could boycott the publication or its advertisers. But these threats, all of which politically powerful groups can use to their advantage, aren’t being debated here or denounced by the people supposedly standing up for free speech. Of all the things that limit the free speech of journalists, the threat of violence by non-state actors is probably the only one that no one is interested in defending.
I am in favor of the folk conception of free speech. Non-governmental control of speech is problematic. For example, you can get fired for how you vote. In practice, people don’t do that all that often, but maybe the expanded folk conception of free speech is part of the reason why.
The right is very fond of free markets until a market favours something progressive. Then consumer choice is called a conspiracy, or, my favourite, “mob rule”.
Hey Freddie,
Long time reader, love your work and think it’s inspiring. I know you have a staunch anti-piracy position when it comes to media (games, music, movies, etc) but do you have a different policy when it comes to tools or means of production i.e. software or blue prints. I developed quite the skill set for video special effects in my youth, and considered it as my potential career path for a time, but given where I was born economically and geographically I would have never been able to have access to the software or develop that skill set without piracy.
As someone who is concerned about the condition of civil liberties in the states today I found your arguments in your previous post confusing. Surely you are aware of the ban on certain t shirts and hand jestures from public schools. The atmosphere of censure on college campuses on speakers, works &c. demmed offensive, the demonizing and silencing (frequently violent) of peaceful demonstrators (cf. The last 5 years) and so on. Surely any show of support for freedom of expression is welcome.
Everybody is in favor of freedom of expression in the abstract, and that’s all these media blowhards and posturing politicians are talking about. Progress on the more difficult questions, such as the ones you raise, requires harder work.
You guys are overgeneralizing my point, and in doing so, failing to understand it. My point was not at all that there are no threats to free speech out there. My point is that in the particular debate at hand, the claim being made is “we should never allow this violence to compel us to prevent the publication of controversial cartoons.” And that is a point that is literally not in dispute anywhere, but is being treated as a matter of great controversy. Yes, there are forces for censorship in the world, but in the question of whether or not we should censor things like that published by Charlie Hebdo thanks to the violence of Muslim terrorists, there is unanimity.
Freddie, you’re the greatest, but Christ, man, Gawker is a flaky, gossipy-ass site. Let it go. They’re gonna flip out over the non-felonious behavior of the Fred Armisons of the world. Let it go.
Actually, reading that Gawker piece and the attendant comments (along with, as Freddie would say, making me want to gargle bleach) convinced me that the true effect was exactly the opposite of the one Freddie attributed to it– that in spite of all the tsk-tsking, the article was ultimately a form of valorization of being a shitty boyfriend.
Your criticisms of the way others argue neglects an important point.
Its a very effective electoral strategy.
Rhetoric classically is about discussing ideas to arrive at truth. Convincing others of the rightness of your position.
Obama was elected by making very specific arguments to people who were already inclined to vote for him. A strategy known on the Right as “energizing the base”. Obama’s campaign workers would go door-to-door calling on the Democrats and Minority voters and skipping the Republicans. The theory being that calling on Republicans would just get them angry and cause them get out and vote for Romney. Romney canvassers laughed and thought the lazy Obama canvassers were skipping houses.
This remarkably successful strategy has changed the nature of political debate. Professional politicians now use debate to keep their team cohesive, motivated, and organized. They are less concerned with convincing members of the other team to defect.
Are you single?
haha yes
That was subtle.
Hey Freddie,
I love the blog, but I have a nagging and very genuine question. Do you ever worry that you’re getting to be a little too much of a lefty nag who nags left? It seems that a lot of your posts lately have been about frustration with how people you agree with argue. I agree with you on all points, but I wonder where the line is between stuff that’s worth ignoring (some a-hole made a Tumblr) and stuff worth addressing (some thought leader at The Nation is wrong, and perhaps an a-hole). I’m just curious about your thoughts on this. Are you feeding trolls?
P.S. : I have sent links to a couple of your posts to lefties who were arguing badly… so you definitely fill a niche in my online diet. I am just curious about whether you feel a place or a duty in the political sphere now.
A data point. I’m on the right and read your blog. A few of my (right-wing) ask me why, and my answer is that, aside from the general virtue of reading people you disagree with, is that a lot of your posts read to me as exactly the sort of thing I would write if:
1. I were a much, much better writer, and
2. I wanted to attack social justice effectively by criticizing it signalling that I was an ally
I think this is a sort of inverse Poe’s law, wherein effective self-criticism is indistinguishable from effective concern trolling.
You should consider opening up comments again. Does WordPress let you “lock” comments after a certain number of days? Might be easier to moderate/keep up with spam if all post comments are locked after, say, 5 days.
Left is the new right.
I too enjoy non sequiturs
Time elapsed between reading here that there is no serious discussion about curtailing speech in the West (‘On debating dead moral questions’) and finding out that the AP had removed copies of Andre Serrano’s “Piss Christ” from online publication in order to bring it into line with their newly stated( yet allegedly years-old) policy of “refrain(ing) from moving deliberately provocative images” : about 3 hours.
I missed where the AP was a wing of the US government.
The Hollywood Blacklist was also not an official list of the U.S. Government. So that wasn’t a free speech issue either, right?
You get that the cartoons in question for published immensely now times because of the attacks, right? Like you can’t get away from them now. Which is good. But not indicative of censorship.
“You get that the cartoons in question for published immensely now times because of the attacks, right?”
Am I an idiot or was this some kind of Autocorrect disaster?
Notwithstanding your great ‘On debating dead moral questions’ post, I am a bit surprised by your reply to Miler, because you’d agree with Miler that free speech ability goes beyond government not suppressing people.
http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/04/18/free-speech-rights-and-ability/
I suspect Fred’s position here is that the American controversy over which news sources are and aren’t censoring the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is largely insincere posturing.
In progressive circles, I’ve long been seeing this argument, perfectly exemplified in this xkcd strip, that Free Speech is purely an issue of the actions of governments. It strikes me as willful ignorance, a kind of convenient half truth. Chilling effects are a real thing, as the modern progressive Left well knows given that generating tailor-made, allegedly benign chilling effects is a widely-endorsed tactic to bring about a more just and compassionate world.
My point is that maybe it’s not as dead an issue as you make it out to be. People have been trying to censor that photograph for nearly 30 years.
Good point. I’ve noticed the same thing.
I suspect that some on the left realize that there are many issues where it is politically infeasible to harness the coercive power of the state to achieve their ends, so they are now focused on harnessing the coercive power of corporations. I noticed that during the Brendan Eich affair. I was surprised to see hear some people on the left argue that a private corporation like Mozilla can do whatever it wants to its employees. For me, that was an eye-opener: “left” or “progressive” is not necessarily “liberal.”
“I suspect that some on the left realize that there are many issues where it is politically infeasible to harness the coercive power of the state to achieve their ends, so they are now focused on harnessing the coercive power of corporations”
Hunh. That is a really succinct way to put it.
Good point, but I think that shows why the attack on Charlie Hebdo won’t result in a meaningful debate on freedom of expression. What journalists write is curtailed by fear of being sued for defamation, or of losing access to sources, or of offending advertisers, an editor, or a group that could boycott the publication or its advertisers. But these threats, all of which politically powerful groups can use to their advantage, aren’t being debated here or denounced by the people supposedly standing up for free speech. Of all the things that limit the free speech of journalists, the threat of violence by non-state actors is probably the only one that no one is interested in defending.
I am in favor of the folk conception of free speech. Non-governmental control of speech is problematic. For example, you can get fired for how you vote. In practice, people don’t do that all that often, but maybe the expanded folk conception of free speech is part of the reason why.
Nothing new about boycotts.
The right is very fond of free markets until a market favours something progressive. Then consumer choice is called a conspiracy, or, my favourite, “mob rule”.
i sure am glad you blogged for andrew. that’s how i met you. how much has your own blogger audience increased since your debut on the dish?
What is this human life?
You should consider reading David Hart’s “Experience of God”. That is all.
Hey Freddie,
Long time reader, love your work and think it’s inspiring. I know you have a staunch anti-piracy position when it comes to media (games, music, movies, etc) but do you have a different policy when it comes to tools or means of production i.e. software or blue prints. I developed quite the skill set for video special effects in my youth, and considered it as my potential career path for a time, but given where I was born economically and geographically I would have never been able to have access to the software or develop that skill set without piracy.
So many Fredtorical questions! (“You get that X isn’t Y, right?”). They’ve become your calling card.
As someone who is concerned about the condition of civil liberties in the states today I found your arguments in your previous post confusing. Surely you are aware of the ban on certain t shirts and hand jestures from public schools. The atmosphere of censure on college campuses on speakers, works &c. demmed offensive, the demonizing and silencing (frequently violent) of peaceful demonstrators (cf. The last 5 years) and so on. Surely any show of support for freedom of expression is welcome.
Everybody is in favor of freedom of expression in the abstract, and that’s all these media blowhards and posturing politicians are talking about. Progress on the more difficult questions, such as the ones you raise, requires harder work.
You guys are overgeneralizing my point, and in doing so, failing to understand it. My point was not at all that there are no threats to free speech out there. My point is that in the particular debate at hand, the claim being made is “we should never allow this violence to compel us to prevent the publication of controversial cartoons.” And that is a point that is literally not in dispute anywhere, but is being treated as a matter of great controversy. Yes, there are forces for censorship in the world, but in the question of whether or not we should censor things like that published by Charlie Hebdo thanks to the violence of Muslim terrorists, there is unanimity.
Yeah, I disagree with you on some things, but this seemed clear enough.
Freddie, you’re the greatest, but Christ, man, Gawker is a flaky, gossipy-ass site. Let it go. They’re gonna flip out over the non-felonious behavior of the Fred Armisons of the world. Let it go.
Actually, reading that Gawker piece and the attendant comments (along with, as Freddie would say, making me want to gargle bleach) convinced me that the true effect was exactly the opposite of the one Freddie attributed to it– that in spite of all the tsk-tsking, the article was ultimately a form of valorization of being a shitty boyfriend.
Your criticisms of the way others argue neglects an important point.
Its a very effective electoral strategy.
Rhetoric classically is about discussing ideas to arrive at truth. Convincing others of the rightness of your position.
Obama was elected by making very specific arguments to people who were already inclined to vote for him. A strategy known on the Right as “energizing the base”. Obama’s campaign workers would go door-to-door calling on the Democrats and Minority voters and skipping the Republicans. The theory being that calling on Republicans would just get them angry and cause them get out and vote for Romney. Romney canvassers laughed and thought the lazy Obama canvassers were skipping houses.
This remarkably successful strategy has changed the nature of political debate. Professional politicians now use debate to keep their team cohesive, motivated, and organized. They are less concerned with convincing members of the other team to defect.
Thanks for the soapbox.