If I get over my current cough/infection, I will be at the DNJ Holiday Party.
I fundamentally disagree with you about the idea of "free-speech culture" being imported into university policy -- if that it going to be enforced at the point of a spear wielded by government officials. I have a HUGE problem with Rep. Stefanik threatening the t…
If I get over my current cough/infection, I will be at the DNJ Holiday Party.
I fundamentally disagree with you about the idea of "free-speech culture" being imported into university policy -- if that it going to be enforced at the point of a spear wielded by government officials. I have a HUGE problem with Rep. Stefanik threatening the tax-exempt status of universities that fail to adhere to view of "free-speech culture" that she thinks should prevail. If "free-speech culture" being imported into university policy means that you and other anti-"cancel culture" people are going to call out universities that do not reach the balance that you think is appropriate in deciding speech issues on campus, then you literally have abandoned your position and adopted mine. There is no "anti-'cancel culture'" stand that withstands scrutiny. Either it (a) devolves into state action to enforce the new orthodoxy ("anti-'cancel culture'") or (b) is just another level of private actors vehemently (or non-vehemently) asserting their privately held views about actions taken by third parties.
1. I believe that the American Nazi Party has the right to hold a parade in New York City (my home).
2. I also believe that it is my right to:
a. Counter-protest against that parade;
b. Take photographs of everyone who marches in that parade;
c. Publicly identify everyone who marches in that parade;
d. Boycott any business that continues to employ any person who marches in that parade, except
e. A governmental entity cannot fire a person who marches in that parade for having marched in that parade, outside of certain well-defined categories.
If you believe that is "cancel culture", then I plead guilty to believing in "cancel culture".
I’m glad you raised this point, since I’d like to get your thoughts on an issue I’ve been struggling with (and don’t have a firm view on): “doxxing” of students (who are more sympathetic than Nazis), like students who find their names and faces plastered on trucks or Google-bombed because they did something controversial (like signing a pro-Palestine statement or protesting Judge Duncan).
On the one hand, I think the practice of doxxing is pretty awful. On the other hand, maybe it’s not that different from your Nazi hypo—except as to the content of the speech, but I hate creating speech rules or policies that turn on normative judgments about the substance of the speech.
And let’s say we are troubled by the doxxing of students. What rules can we come up with that don’t infringe on the First Amendment rights of others (like your right to call out the Nazis)?
(And I’m going to stipulate here that the info used for doxxing is both true and publicly available, e.g., through simple Google searches. I don’t want folks to “fight the hypothetical” by saying the info is defamatory or was obtained through commission of a privacy tort.)
If we believe in the First Amendment, then "doxxing" of the sort that you described is legal and falls within the sort of vigorous speech that a Free Speech Culture would support.
To be clear, (a) SWATting is not legal, (b) conveying threats of bodily harm are not legal, and (c) constant contact that is abusive without any reference to the views expressed in the contact are not legal (calling 60 times/hour). But letting the whole world know that Person X said/did Thing Y and publicly available information shows that they can be found in Place Z is well-within the First Amendment.
Before you respond to this, please compare it to the parade-of-horribles that this country is already enduring from the post-Heller view of the Second Amendment.
Thanks for these insights, Mitch. I'm still mulling this over, but as of now, your logic strikes me as sound. I just have such a visceral distaste for this tactic, having read about how scared some of these students are, how their families back home have gotten dragged into this (because the doxxing trucks follow them home for break), etc.
I probably disagree very strongly with many of these students on the underlying issues, but I take no pleasure in their suffering. Having someone followed around by a truck with a giant sign calling them an antisemite, replete with their face and name, seems like a disproportionate response to signing a letter or petition.
The answer to bad speech is more speech. The response to being "doxxed" or "named and shamed" is to (a) stand up for the initial behavior and demonstrate to the public that the response is inappropriate or (b) apologize and rescind - stating that the initial decision to sign the letter or petition was not fully informed.
I think you are making a category error. The ONLY purpose for signing a petition or open letter is to take a PUBLIC stand on an issue. The statement is, "I believe in the cause so fervently that I am willing to invest my good name to support it." It is not an action to be taken lightly, nor should it be treated as such.
This is different than, for example, signing a petition in support of a person (or issue) getting onto a ballot. In that case, the number of valid signatures is the thing that does the work, and the identity of the signatories is largely irrelevant. I have signed petitions for ballot access on issues where I eventually decided to vote against the proposition, because I believed that the issue deserved to be fully considered by the electorate.
But, it you sign a letter that says, "The University should do X because [Entity Y} is guilty of [Misconduct Z]", you are investing your good name in that statement.
And yes, your solicitousness of "students who are doxxed" versus "Nazis" appears to me entirely based on your subjective view of the moral value of the speech being given. If an 18 year old marches through Skokie with the Nazi Party or that same 18 year old marches past St. Patrick's Cathedral with ACT-UP or that same 18 year old marches in support of the Intifada or that same 18 year old marches in support of abortion rights, the Constitutional analysis is the same. They are within their right to do so (unless threatening imminent lawless action) and the public is within their rights to name & shame them.
I would certainly be open to particularized protections for minors. But, the law does not view minors as having complete First Amendment rights. See all of the School Speech cases.
I agree @Mitchell Epner that doxxing - as distasteful as we night find it - is First Amendment speech. Free speech does not mean without consequences: it constitutes a liberty to even make the initial comments. There is a real intellectual confusion (perhaps ignorance?) that the "free" somehow means without cost. It does not.
If I get over my current cough/infection, I will be at the DNJ Holiday Party.
I fundamentally disagree with you about the idea of "free-speech culture" being imported into university policy -- if that it going to be enforced at the point of a spear wielded by government officials. I have a HUGE problem with Rep. Stefanik threatening the tax-exempt status of universities that fail to adhere to view of "free-speech culture" that she thinks should prevail. If "free-speech culture" being imported into university policy means that you and other anti-"cancel culture" people are going to call out universities that do not reach the balance that you think is appropriate in deciding speech issues on campus, then you literally have abandoned your position and adopted mine. There is no "anti-'cancel culture'" stand that withstands scrutiny. Either it (a) devolves into state action to enforce the new orthodoxy ("anti-'cancel culture'") or (b) is just another level of private actors vehemently (or non-vehemently) asserting their privately held views about actions taken by third parties.
To give a paradigmatic example:
1. I believe that the American Nazi Party has the right to hold a parade in New York City (my home).
2. I also believe that it is my right to:
a. Counter-protest against that parade;
b. Take photographs of everyone who marches in that parade;
c. Publicly identify everyone who marches in that parade;
d. Boycott any business that continues to employ any person who marches in that parade, except
e. A governmental entity cannot fire a person who marches in that parade for having marched in that parade, outside of certain well-defined categories.
If you believe that is "cancel culture", then I plead guilty to believing in "cancel culture".
I’m glad you raised this point, since I’d like to get your thoughts on an issue I’ve been struggling with (and don’t have a firm view on): “doxxing” of students (who are more sympathetic than Nazis), like students who find their names and faces plastered on trucks or Google-bombed because they did something controversial (like signing a pro-Palestine statement or protesting Judge Duncan).
On the one hand, I think the practice of doxxing is pretty awful. On the other hand, maybe it’s not that different from your Nazi hypo—except as to the content of the speech, but I hate creating speech rules or policies that turn on normative judgments about the substance of the speech.
And let’s say we are troubled by the doxxing of students. What rules can we come up with that don’t infringe on the First Amendment rights of others (like your right to call out the Nazis)?
(And I’m going to stipulate here that the info used for doxxing is both true and publicly available, e.g., through simple Google searches. I don’t want folks to “fight the hypothetical” by saying the info is defamatory or was obtained through commission of a privacy tort.)
If we believe in the First Amendment, then "doxxing" of the sort that you described is legal and falls within the sort of vigorous speech that a Free Speech Culture would support.
To be clear, (a) SWATting is not legal, (b) conveying threats of bodily harm are not legal, and (c) constant contact that is abusive without any reference to the views expressed in the contact are not legal (calling 60 times/hour). But letting the whole world know that Person X said/did Thing Y and publicly available information shows that they can be found in Place Z is well-within the First Amendment.
Before you respond to this, please compare it to the parade-of-horribles that this country is already enduring from the post-Heller view of the Second Amendment.
Thanks for these insights, Mitch. I'm still mulling this over, but as of now, your logic strikes me as sound. I just have such a visceral distaste for this tactic, having read about how scared some of these students are, how their families back home have gotten dragged into this (because the doxxing trucks follow them home for break), etc.
I probably disagree very strongly with many of these students on the underlying issues, but I take no pleasure in their suffering. Having someone followed around by a truck with a giant sign calling them an antisemite, replete with their face and name, seems like a disproportionate response to signing a letter or petition.
The answer to bad speech is more speech. The response to being "doxxed" or "named and shamed" is to (a) stand up for the initial behavior and demonstrate to the public that the response is inappropriate or (b) apologize and rescind - stating that the initial decision to sign the letter or petition was not fully informed.
I think you are making a category error. The ONLY purpose for signing a petition or open letter is to take a PUBLIC stand on an issue. The statement is, "I believe in the cause so fervently that I am willing to invest my good name to support it." It is not an action to be taken lightly, nor should it be treated as such.
This is different than, for example, signing a petition in support of a person (or issue) getting onto a ballot. In that case, the number of valid signatures is the thing that does the work, and the identity of the signatories is largely irrelevant. I have signed petitions for ballot access on issues where I eventually decided to vote against the proposition, because I believed that the issue deserved to be fully considered by the electorate.
But, it you sign a letter that says, "The University should do X because [Entity Y} is guilty of [Misconduct Z]", you are investing your good name in that statement.
And yes, your solicitousness of "students who are doxxed" versus "Nazis" appears to me entirely based on your subjective view of the moral value of the speech being given. If an 18 year old marches through Skokie with the Nazi Party or that same 18 year old marches past St. Patrick's Cathedral with ACT-UP or that same 18 year old marches in support of the Intifada or that same 18 year old marches in support of abortion rights, the Constitutional analysis is the same. They are within their right to do so (unless threatening imminent lawless action) and the public is within their rights to name & shame them.
Finally, the fear of the repercussions of public speech on controversial issues is precisely why the Supreme Court has upheld the protections on anonymous speech. Talley v. California (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/362/60.html), McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/514/334.html) and NAACP v. Alabama (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/357/449.html) all stand for the proposition that the right to anonymous speech must be protected because some people will not be able to bear the weight of publicly stating their opinions.
I would certainly be open to particularized protections for minors. But, the law does not view minors as having complete First Amendment rights. See all of the School Speech cases.
I agree @Mitchell Epner that doxxing - as distasteful as we night find it - is First Amendment speech. Free speech does not mean without consequences: it constitutes a liberty to even make the initial comments. There is a real intellectual confusion (perhaps ignorance?) that the "free" somehow means without cost. It does not.