Open letter published to fight "Cancel Culture"

[pknopp]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

Who punished her? Are fans of Led Zeppelin punishing Snoop Dog because they don't buy his work?

 

[Mac1958]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

Who punished her? Are fans of Led Zeppelin punishing Snoop Dog because they don't buy his work?

This is about far more than her. THAT is their POINT.

 

[pknopp]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

Why? Because you've not actually made any other point.

 

[Mac1958]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

Is that all that happens in Cancel Culture, in the big picture?

If so, why is it called "Cancel Culture" to begin with?

People love to come up with these new labels for things that are not new for some reason.

I guess it helps push the news. "Cancel Culture"?

Whats that? Click.

As an example. I was a documentary on an underground comic book writer that got himself into trouble over his comics. Now I will agree that the part where the government got involved was wrong.

But there is a reason they were "underground" comics that had to print their own material. Publishers simply weren't interested in their work.

They didn't have an obligation to publish it.

I think this is new in that it has clearly accelerated. Either we believe in true freedom of expression, unencumbered, or we do not.

The venues to disagree (or even agree) have expanded. That's simply the nature of things.

Again, she is free to say whatever she wants. What she (and you) want it the ability to say what you want without anyone saying you are wrong.

I'll say it for the third and last time: It's NOT about opposing an idea with SPEECH. THAT is the POINT of it.

I don't know why you don't want to recognize that, but three tries is enough for me.

Why? Because you've not actually made any other point.

You're okay with cancel culture. I am not. We disagree.

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

Who punished her? Are fans of Led Zeppelin punishing Snoop Dog because they don't buy his work?

This is about far more than her. THAT is their POINT.

It's all the same. The idea of Free Speech does NOT mean what you think it does. It does not mean there is never going to be negative repercussions of your speech.

 

[occupied]

For those who stand to become the immediate victims of right-wing fascism it's difficult to say if they are overreacting to white supremacy trying to become a mainstream political ideology.

Freedom of expression has allowed these people to expose themselves to the light of day, loud and clear. I take that as a positive.

Now we know how much work still needs to be done. Freedom of expression gave us that. I'll defend their right to show us what they are.

I disagree. Fascists deal in big beautiful lies and never just come right out and say that they want a brutal police state. History is clear how dangerous demagoguery can be and there has to be a line somewhere. By the time the fascists feel brave enough to state their real goals it's much too late to put a lid on it.

 

[TheParser]

Those intellectuals are wasting their breath.

The people behind "cancel culture" are NOT thoughtful, intelligent people who can be reasoned with.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What is cancel culture ?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

 

[Disir]

Salman Rushdie signed that puppy. That's a blast from the past. He knows all about cancel cultures, or better yet, the eraser cultures.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

Good stuff.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Free speech is not the right to have no one counter your speech.

Counter with speech, yes. Counter with punishment and intimidation, no.

There is a very clear distinction there.

People are saying "I do not support what she is saying". They have as much right to say that as she does to say what she says.

That is NOT "what they are saying"

 

[pknopp]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

 

[Mac1958]

Freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of ALL our values.

It's ILLIBERAL to distort it.

Replying is NOT distorting it.

Yes, I'll say it again: The problem is the punishment and intimidation.

We just have two different definitions of freedom of expression.

That's also known as retaliation and in some cases is unlawful.

I'd rather see it fade away culturally and keep the government out of it.

It's illiberal.

Are you saying that you expect people to self-regulate?

What I'm saying is that freedom of speech and expression is the most LIBERAL of all of our values, and that I support it.

So, I agree with Noam Chomsky on this and other issues.

Examples of others who agree with me:

Where has the government gotten involved and where has anyone stopped her (and others) from saying whatever they want?

Never, that I'm aware of. And, of course, I have made it abundantly clear already that that is not my point.

You're fine with it. I agree with President Obama, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Noam Chomsky, Salman freakin' Rushdie and many other liberals on this.

We disagree. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The only thing I've been able to determine is the new label to a very old thing.

Free speech has never meant that there would never be any repurcussions because of that speech.

All you have to do is read the article and you'll know exactly what I'm saying. In addition to the very clear comments I have made on this thread.

I have made myself and my position (and that of Obama, Sanders, Warren, Chomsky and Rushdie) EXTREMELY clear.

That's all I can do.