Read on Twitter
So, I find this interesting.
@zackbeauchamp's new Vox piece argues that the "cancel culture" debate is not really about free speech. Beauchamp contends the dispute is over where to draw the line rather than about the discourse principles themselves. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/22/21325942/free-speech-harpers-letter-bari-weiss-andrew-sullivan
@zackbeauchamp's new Vox piece argues that the "cancel culture" debate is not really about free speech. Beauchamp contends the dispute is over where to draw the line rather than about the discourse principles themselves. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/7/22/21325942/free-speech-harpers-letter-bari-weiss-andrew-sullivan
I agree with the first claim but think the second is crucially mistaken.
Here's the way I recently affirmed a version of Beauchamp's first claim.
Here's the way I recently affirmed a version of Beauchamp's first claim.
Here's where Beauchamp's off. He thinks that because both the anti-cancel culture folks and the people who deny cancel culture is a problem have views they agree are beyond the pale—e.g., Holocaust Denialism—this must mean the two groups fundamentally agree *on the principle.*
In other words, he thinks that since both groups agree that some ideas ought to be excluded, and in fact sometimes agree on what those ideas are, this means they agree on the underlying free speech principle.
But this is a mistake. As I show here: https://arcdigital.media/the-discourse-wars-d3d93e751442?source=friends_link&sk=199f73adc3d29aee2800af3320122bc6
But this is a mistake. As I show here: https://arcdigital.media/the-discourse-wars-d3d93e751442?source=friends_link&sk=199f73adc3d29aee2800af3320122bc6
Yes, both are willing to *exclude.* But that's not enough to establish discourse-principle-agreement. Because who they are willing to *include* suggests importantly different discourse visions.
If one group is willing to grant entry to views and perspectives all the other members of the group disagree with (even if they also exclude some other views), that's a substantively different conception of acceptable discourse than a group who requires strict moral agreement.
Take the different editorial visions of Arc and some ideologically-driven commentary page. The fact that we "draw the line" at different places isn't explanatorily complete; what's left out is that there's a prior philosophical difference about what The Discourse should be.
We think it is actively good to have views that we, the editors, strongly disagree with. We certainly have our parameters, that is, we certainly draw lines. But our approach places pluralism as an exalted discourse good.
The other approach does *not* see pluralism this way.
The other approach does *not* see pluralism this way.
Instead, for the other approach, for the people on behalf of whom Beauchamp is writing, the greatest discourse good is something like Agreement With These Moral Truths, as they see it.
That is a difference in kind and not in degree.
That is a difference in kind and not in degree.
Lots in here that is pertinent to this debate as well. https://arcdigital.media/the-arc-digital-way-74b12ef875d8?source=friends_link&sk=de872e7417fde373fa045065e48a8c98
The reason I don't use the "free speech" framework to understand this dispute is because that one has more to do with the libertarian/statist struggle over legal protections.
This one has more to do with the infra-legal discourse norms: our shared social discourse vision.
This one has more to do with the infra-legal discourse norms: our shared social discourse vision.
